The better answer: To fix mistakes Judges make. Isn’t it shocking that in “30 rulings” not one mistake has been made that produced any hearings on disputed facts, presenting of evidence, subpoena, depositions or cross-examinations.
By the way none of the rulings were on Obama’s eligibility were they? They were on legal process.
And the DC Code does not trump the Constitution.
Since nearly every Obama eligibility lawsuit has been dismissed for lack of standing to bring a suit under Article III of the Constitution, the only issue for appeals courts to consider was did the trial court err in not granting standing to the plaintiffs.
The term “quo warranto” does not appear in the US Constitution. The process for removing a sitting president is via impeachment, trial in the Senate and conviction or via resignation, as was the case with Richard Milhouse Nixon.
If the House Republicans conducted congressional hearings and produced enough evidence against Obama’s eligibility that he became “damaged goods,” the Democrats would force him to step down for the good of the Party.
If my bias is other than Justice, Truth and Mercy, compassion and friendship to all, let it be erased.