[SaraJohnson]

It looks to me like he gave the plaintiffs wiggle room in the appeal by basing his decision on an idea that 69 million votes rules over the constitution. Wonder if the Supremes would agree with that idea? We are a constitutional Republic - not a democracy. The mob does not rule. The constitution, the high law in the land, rules.

[Non-Sequitur]

It looks to me like he gave the plaintiffs wiggle room in the appeal by basing his decision on an idea that 69 million votes rules over the constitution.

I suggest you read the entire decision rather than just the last paragraph. He agreed with every ground for dismissal that the defense raised - lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, everything. There is nothing in that decision to grant an appeal on. Taitz and Kreep failed in every way possible to make their case.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

The constitution, the high law in the land, rules.

And the Constitution states that the only way to remove a President from office is through the impeachment process. For a judge to issue an injunction removing a sitting President from office would be nothing short of judicial tyranny.

[danamco]

Unfortunately I'm afraid that for some unknown reason the SCOTUS will take the same position!!!

What reason, well that is the real question???