Posted on 09/17/2009 7:04:49 AM PDT by BobMV
irregardless of what her feelings about the present commander-in-thief is, President Bush (God rest him) began Operation: Iraqi Freedom. The mission has not changed; she is still culpable!!
What the hell kind of nonsensical statement is this? Obama is not being accused of a crime, he is applying for a job. The burden of proof IS on him. This, along with his rant about the "grueling election" (as if that has jack-shit to do with anything) makes me seriously question the competence of this judge.
He’s not applying for a job. He has the job. The plaintiff seeks to change the status quo and has the burden of presenting a factual case.
The reference to the “grueling election” is explained in the text.
He is not being placed in jeopardy. He is enjoying a privileged position. The burden of proof is still on him, before or after the fact of him being hired.
The reference to the “grueling election” is explained in the text.
I did read the text before I made my statement, which still stands. The judge simply stated that there were many opportunities for discovery, that doesn't mean that discovery was done. We STILL have no PROOF that he is eligible for the job. That fact cannot be gotten around.
No. The burden is on the one bringing the suit.
Given the effort, attention and funds available during the election, if nothing was uncovered that showed Obama to be ineligible, there's a *reason*. You can't find something that doesn't exist. That's the point.
As for proof, there is sufficient legal proof that he was born in Hawaii. That's enough.
No, the burden of proof was always on Obama. Before or after the fact.
Given the effort, attention and funds available during the election, if nothing was uncovered that showed Obama to be ineligible, there's a *reason*.
Nonsense. You could have 100 lawyers backed with billions of dollars, and as long as Barak refuses to sign the form, all of the "available resourses" and "grueling" arguements mean nothing. And we are not lookiing for something that "showed Obama to be ineligible , we are looking for something that showed Obama to be eligible. As for "there is sufficient legal proof that he was born in Hawaii. That's enough.", that's not "enough", that's "the question".
Sorry, you don't get to make it up as you go along. Obama has no burden to prove anything at this point in time. If someone wants to go to court to sue him, that person has a burden to present facts to prove their case. It doesn't matter if you think it shouldn't work that way, it does.
"Nonsense..."
Nope. Nobody produced evidence that Obama wasn't eligible because none existed. None exists now.
"As for "there is sufficient legal proof that he was born in Hawaii. That's enough.", that's not "enough", that's "the question"."
It is enough. Being born in Hawaii would make him eligible.
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.