Posted on 10/25/2008 1:48:50 AM PDT by Dajjal
The Supreme Court is not going to take this case. Have you forgotten what happened with the Ohio GOP last week ?
“Standing” is critical to any law suit proceeding. I can’t imagine what “standing” would be required in this case, or who would have it.
Welcome to Free Republic- where we’re capable of walking, chewing gum and doing research on a myriad of issues at the same time.
What would you say the “real issues” are?
The Constitution doesn't say anything about candidates...
So if the general public is dumb enough to vote the guy in, then any citizen would have from Nov 5 to Jan 20 to contest it with standing.
The reason this got dismissed was because the issue is not in the mainstream news. Think about it... would you want to be the “republican” judge that tried to use the bench to deny a black man a shot at becoming president? Thats the way Obama would have responded, and he has the cash to sway public opinion that way to ensure this judge would never work again.
If Berg is going to appeal this, he will have to appeal it to the court of public opinion first.
SCOTUS will refuse to hear this case unless there is a massive public outcry.
“Standing” is critical to any law suit proceeding. I can’t imagine what “standing” would be required in this case, or who would have it....
Not a lawyer but I believe standing would be if someone could show loss or damage as a result of there being no BC.
So McCain and the RNC could sue if he lost the election.
Berg has said previously that he intends to appeal all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary. Let’s make sure it isn’t necessary after Nov. 4th.
There’s still the Andy Martin suit in Hawaii, and the one in the state of Washington.
I suspect the theory is that Obama can be vetted by the voters. If enough voters demand he produce evidence, he either will or he’ll lose the election. If they don’t, then presumably the large majority (95%) are satisfied with his qualifications.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the Constitution anticipated an environment where it is extremely difficult to get the truth out. I’m 50, and I never imagined we would have press bias such as we have had this year.
If a majority of the electorate chooses to install this socialist libtard based on “Hope and Change” without any concern whatsoever about who he is or what he’s done or what he’s said, then it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says anymore.
In that case, a single low level judge and a gadfly attorney are not sufficient to save us from ourselves.
Hello?
I’m presuming you left off your sarcasm tag?
I wonder if a State would have standing to file such a suit directly in the Supreme Court as a case of original jurisdiction.
Cordially,
I agree. If they have anything such as videos, audios, affidavits, copies of BC’s / passports / and school records, they should release them right after Hussein’s infomercial. If what they have is explosive, people will forget about the infomercial.
It seems that NO court in this country is concerned about following the constitution. Given what I have read, I do not think that it is out of line for a judge to order Hussein to show his birth and citizenship documentation especially given the job that he is applying for.
How does a story like this come out at 3am?
I’ve still not seen the ruling on the Justia site.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
...strange......Shouldn’t the decision be posted now?
But he DID produce his actual birth certificate. Factcheck.org saw it with their own eyes. And they even photographed it. Forgot to scan it in of course, but hey, a photograph is pretty darn good! No need to present it to an actual court or legal official. Just some folks who work for a website that is run and funded by an organization that Obama worked with and gave money to.
See, no need for lawyers and legal stuff, he did it already!
(that was total and complete sarcasm by the way)
A couple things I learned from reading the dismissal order in a similar case against McCain: The judiciary is loathe to get involved in these kinds of cases, because they concern the prerogatives of the voters who are really the ones supposedly deciding the matter, and because it all has to do with the operations of the executive branch—therefore, the judicial attitude is to stay out of it if at all possible and let the voters vet and weigh and choose on the very questions posed by the lawsuit.
It’s as if the courts would rather say, “Very well then, if the guy’s Constitutionally ineligible, then you voters are in the position to deny him the office.”
I certainly think such an attitude on the part of the judiciary is somewhat derelict and chickenshit and probably partisan toward DemonRATS in the main, but heck I’m just a lowly citizen!
As far as “standing” goes, the courts seem to be saying that as long as a voter has the option of writing in someone else’s name on the ballot, the voter is in no jeopardy of suffering damages or disenfranchisement by having an ineligible person on the ballot!! Ghastly, truly ghastly I tell you.
(Grabs pitchfork and lights torch)
I have the same question.
- Not (yet) updated on the docket
- I would have also expected the person at the following link to have his site updated as well:
Pitchfork ping!
I think these judges don't want the political fallout that would arise from such a decision. Some would translate that as being a coward. But, I'm sure there are some legal technicalities that must be there, and they know the MSM will find these in order to make any judge look like a hack, or even worse--A RACIST.
Excellent point...where is Jeff?
Hold everything; this may be a bogus post after all...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.