Skip to comments.Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over
Posted on 12/23/2011 8:19:18 AM PST by Smokeyblue
The judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that election fraud suspected in the 2008 presidential campaign essentially was canceled by the inauguration of Barack Obama.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit that was filed on the same day Obama was inaugurated in Washington by a team of taxpayers, voters, presidential candidates, members of the military and others who alleged Obama failed to meet the Constitution's requirements for the presidency.
The opinion from judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon explained the concept is called "competitive standing," and they affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern.
However, in Obama's case, the court panel simply said once the inauguration was held, the claims evaporated.
"The original complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, after President Obama was officially sworn is as president," the judges wrote. "Once the 2008 election was over and the president sworn in, Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future.
"Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the 'potential loss of an election,'" the court said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Disgusting. Further undermines respect for the Judiciary.
The new black robed dictators. They don’t even give a damn what anyone thinks about it anymore either.
“The new black robed dictators. They dont even give a damn what anyone thinks about it anymore either.”
All these “birther” rulings are laughable. Contorted twisted logic to get the outcome they desire.
And we actually pay these people.
Punt, punt, punt...
Regardless of anyone’s stance on the “birther” issue, the endless runs-around from the court system are disgusting. Before the election, no one has standing because there was no actionable offense yet, just a potential one. After the election, no one has standing because the election is over.
Pure and simple cowardice and sweeping the issue under the rug.
I’d at least have some measure of respect for them if they came straight out and said, “look, Congress is the ultimate judge of elections — there’s really nothing we can do in that respect, take your case to them.”
So the judges granted “competitive standing” but the cheater already took possession of the prize. Too bad, so sad.
When Gingrich said these judges should be called before Congress...the liberal media went nuts...I cheered.
“Of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
About the only thing we still have is jury nullification.
I is a huge mistake to make judicial offices “for life”.
If the intent is to free judges from politics it may have been well-intentioned,but supremely naive.
We ought to amend the laws ,or Constitution if we must, so that ALL judges ,either elected or appointed serve fixed terms of no more than a modest number of years in the single digits.Let them collect lifetime pensions to reduce the bribery and political pressures if you must.
The Founders envisioned and said the three branches of government were to balance one another,but the judicial branch has claimed and gotten the final say on everything.This must be corrected.
Hmmm, so if there is a civil war, do people have permission to shoot judges, too? ‘Cause I thought it was just politicians and lawyers. If so, I need to buy more ammo.
Not suggesting; Just asking.
Judge Royce Lamberth - Secrecy for the president trumps all else. (Usurper or not)
Judge Col. Denise Lind - The chain of command ends at the Pentagon.
Judge James Robertson - Its been twittered.
Judge David Carter - Ask my recently hired law clerk from Perkins Coie for my opinion.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - “Rosie Ruiz rule” (the cheater already took possession of the prize.”
” Before the election,no one has standing because there was no actionable offense yet,just a potential one. After the election,no one has standing because the election is over.”
Yea, I think that sums it up!
I keep saying that nothing will EVER come of this because we are no longer a nation of laws but of men (tyrants).
The only redress, if we are up to it, is watering that old tree.....
Judges have now officially declared the Constitution non-binding.
Really, we know they have no shame but you’d think they’d be at least embarrassed by these rulings.
They are such jokes.
Voter fraud, in conjunction with open borders, is the Democrats’ vision of the future. Activist left-wing judges will do everything in their power to assist them. If we don’t wake up, the new fascists will prevail.
“Hmmm, so if there is a civil war, do people have permission to shoot judges, too? Cause I thought it was just politicians and lawyers. If so, I need to buy more ammo.
Not suggesting; Just asking.”
During the French Revolution roughly 60% of captured aristocrats were executed by the Republic. As for the Ancien Régime judiciary, the percentage of those executed shot up to 80%.
Not suggesting, just observing.
They are from The Anti Federalist Papers, 78-79 and 80:
I have been concerned about the lifetime appointments for a good portion of my life and these pages from the Anti Federalist Papers confirmed there were many more people , even back then, who shared my worries.
Sooo, you’re saying it’s OK.
Great news. It will be a target-rich environment. Judges will be so easy to spot with their snooty, assho!e, self-entitled, superior attitude and big black robes. Aim small, miss small. /s ;-)
Not in New York ........... “It’s illegal ANYWHERE...”
“Sooo, youre saying its OK.”
I said that was how the French Republic dealt with the Louis XVI’s judiciary.
Recall that the 9th Circus is the most overturned by SCOTUS. So this is less about the law than it is about the 9th Circuit’s continuing liberal activism. Of course the 9th Circus would rule for Obama. Of course. Needs to go to the Supremes.
If this was a decision that there is no case to be decided because there is nobody with “standing”, then the case can’t advance.
Every decision has been that it’s either nobody’s business, every moment is either too early or too late to do anything about it, or not enough is at stake.
If only it was just the “9th Circus.”
Unfortunately, the rot is throughout the entire judiciary including the “were evading the issue” Supreme Court.
I was just kidding with you.
No offense was intended. Nor was I was insinuating that you endorse killling public officials.
My apologies, FRiend.
No problem. One always has to assume a hostile audience though, and we are in transition to a police state. Precision of expression is key.
Every decision has been that its either nobodys business, every moment is either too early or too late to do anything about it, or not enough is at stake.That's not true. For example in Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678; 2009 Ind, the Court's unanimous opinion directly refuted the Vattel-birthers:
Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the judge that Orly Taitz had specifically requested be assigned to her first action before the Court, wrote (in denying a motion for reconsideration):
The President released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, and posted a copy on the White House Web site. The certificate confirms the Presidents birth in Honolulu, Hawaii." [Taitz v Ruemmler 11-cv-421-RCL (2011)]Even in cases that were dismissed on standing, courts have also addressed other issues and answered birthers' questions. For example when the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey decided it did not have jurisdiction, it explained who does:
it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the political question doctrine as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitutions provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices. [Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d (D.N.J. 2009)]If there's one thing birthers hate more than not getting answers to their questions, it's getting answers to their questions.
Ummmm, you've ignored that the first half of the unanimous opinion of 3 based the meat of their decision on denying that the governor had any responsibility to vet presidential candidates. The NBC section failed to declare Obama or McCain to be natural-born citizens, plus we already know about the myriad errors and contradictions in their decision, such as how the phantom guidance they divined wasn't even followed in the case they cited. Quote more. The hoosier hillbillies are funny as hell.
Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the judge that Orly Taitz had specifically requested be assigned to her first action before the Court, wrote (in denying a motion for reconsideration):
This was a footnote referencing a newspaper article to explain what Orly Taitz was requesting. The action was denied NOT because Obama's eligibility had been legally established, but because Taitz was being denied FOIA access to the original documents (as would be permissable under the Federal Rules of Evidence), so this fall's under butter's category of "nobody's business."
Even in cases that were dismissed on standing, courts have also addressed other issues and answered birthers' questions. For example when the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey decided it did not have jurisdiction, it explained who does:
Do you read what you quote before you paste it?? This jibes with butter's complaint. The errant "political doctrine excuse" fits "nobody's business." The 12th amendment and 20th amendment spin fits butter's comments about being too early or too late. There weren't any "answers" to questions, just excuses not to answer them. Thanks for proving this.
Name me one person whose case has been heard on the merits because the judge ruled that they had standing and the case was justiciable. Who in the Ankeny case was granted standing?
The judges can say whatever they want but if they haven’t heard testimony and given discovery it’s just blowing hot air; all that counts legally is that they refused to have testimony and discovery because they refused to hear the case on its merits. And that is what has happened to EVERY CASE, including the ones you mentioned.
Admit it. Even in what you wrote you hid in there the fact that the judge said this or that IN DENYING THE MOTION TO EVEN HEAR THE CASE. They have all denied to hear the case.
The quote you gave from the Kerchner case is so stupid. Nobody was asking the court to do the “selection of the President” so anything the Constitution says about how the President is selected is moot, has nothing to do with whether the determination of Constitutional eligibility is “political”.
And the Twentieth Amendment never says who is to DETERMINE THAT THE PRESIDENT ELECT HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY. Since that job was not designated specifically to anybody by the Constitution, it remains the job of the courts, who are given the responsibility of deciding all cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution.
Why does the 20th Amendment even mention the instance where a President elect has failed to quality, if someone can only become the President elect after the electors have voted and Congress has counted the votes? The 20th Amendment is specifically saying that AFTER both the electors and Congress are done with everything the Constitution authorized them to do concerning the SELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, the President elect can STILL fail to qualify. Which means that the issue of the President QUALIFYING to act as President is totally separate from whether they were elected. The only legal entity Constitutionally left after the Electors and Congress have done their part is the judiciary; so the 20th Amendment implies that the issue of PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATION belongs to the courts. The court in Kerchner’s case was so obviously wrong.
But you know what? The obviously wrong hot air they blew around can’t be appealed because it wasn’t a “decision”; it was just hot air. The only thing that matters legally from those judges - their “decision” - is that they refused to hear the case on its merits, hear the arguments, and legally grapple with the issue by giving it due process. Which is exactly what I said.
What people like you are doing is blowing smoke, to cloud the truth of the status of these cases. Would you believe that the reporter at the Lincoln Journal-Star who spoke so derisively about “birthers” did so because he actually thought a court had decided that Obama is eligible. He had no idea that there has never been a case that was taken on its merits and had the due process of arguments, testimony, and discovery. And he was calling US “stupid”! That’s got to make you feel real good, to know that you’ve blown so much gas that even the reporters don’t know the basic facts. All they would have to do is look at the dockets and see that the motions were all refused and the cases dismissed without a ruling. But no, they listen to the gasbags like you and get it all wrong.
Just stop. Just stop lying about this stuff.
I would hope and plead that any and all judges involved in questions of Obama’s eligibility look very carefully at the basis and facts surrounding Rosie Ruiz’s marathon victory and and the rescission by non lawyer judges I would guess. Newt is right that all judges should face the review of ‘We the People’. I refuse to believe that our Constitution rules out/prohibits ‘We the People’ from not demanding fair hearing of grievances.
"The 12th amendment and 20th amendment spin fits butter's comments about being too early or too late."The Court explained the proper time and place. According to the lead plaintiff, Charles Kerchner, he *had* delivered his argument to the that forum, to his congressional representatives before they certified the election. He did not get his way, but that's not the same thing as recourse being unavailable.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained this issue in Berg v. Obama:
The essence of Bergs complaint is that the defendants, the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress a list that includes some who could have challenged, or could still challenge, Obamas eligibility through various means have not been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one "appropriately resolved through the judicial process."Your problem is not that there's no authority willing to hear your case. Your problem is that your case lost.
"Name me one person whose case has been heard on the merits because the judge ruled that they had standing and the case was justiciable. Who in the Ankeny case was granted standing?"Sigh. The standing doctrine applies to the federal courts. Ankeny v. Daniels was a *state* case.
The quote you gave from the Kerchner case is so stupid."You guys are a hoot. I close with:
If there's one thing birthers hate more than not getting answers to their questions, it's getting answers to their questions.and you come right back with the demo.
noinfringers2 wrote: “Newt is right that all judges should face the review of We the People.”
Birthers want elections decided by lawsuits and legal cases decided by popular opinion.
I repeat: Name me one person whose case was heard on the merits.
The people who don’t want the border enforced just don’t like the answer that Arizona gave them.
Rosa Parks just didn’t like the answer that the whole system gave her.
Jane Roe just didn’t like the answer that the system gave her.
We can play this game until the cows come home.
The Constitution exists to protect people FROM THE SYSTEM. The courts are totally screwed up if they refuse to provide CONSTITUTIONAL protection by saying that the political system is the only recourse. Under that logic, the political system would have been the only recourse for all the above cases also.
What the courts are telling us through the eligibility cases - and by refusing to hear any case on its merits - is that we the people have no recourse for a system hell-bent on breaking the Constitution. Once somebody is elected or appointed, the keys of the kingdom are theirs and nobody can stop them. Anybody who would support that view is either hypnotized into brain-death or an enemy of this country. So which are you?
You have totally ignored the substance of my comments. The 20th Amendment shows clearly that someone can still FAIL TO QUALIFY even after the whole political process of choosing the President elect is completed. Determining whether the President elect (that the Electors voted for and Congress counted the votes for) actually qualifies is something that is clearly done by somebody BESIDES the afore-mentioned, and after the afore-mentioned are done with their work. It’s clearly saying that even when the whole process has chosen the President elect, that person can still be disqualified. It doesn’t say by whom, so the “political doctrine” doesn’t apply, leaving the issue to the courts, who are given the responsibility of resolving all cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution.
Show me where any judge has addressed how a political process that ends with a President elect is authorized in the Constitution to afterwards disqualify the very person they chose as President elect. The measures of the 20th Amendment apply AFTER the political process is done so the political process can’t be responsible for carrying out those measures (specifically determining whether the President and Vice President elect have “failed to qualify”).
By the time you have a “President elect” the Constitutionally-assigned POLITICAL process is done, finito, finished. The 20th Amendment says that if that process chose somebody who fails to qualify, that person cannot act as President - which logically would have to be determined by a process other than the already-completed political process. These judges know that full well, and their arguments ignore basic logic.
You also know that and your responses here all fall under the logical fallacy of the “argument from authority” - the judge said it so it must be right. I have never seen you address what the Constitution actually says, only what the JUDGES say.
But regardless of what those judges said, we cannot compel SCOTUS to say whether or not they were right, because their argument was used to DENY STANDING, which means they deny that there is even a case to be appealed. They know that if standing was ever granted, their claims would be held to legal scrutiny, and they know that their claims could not survive that scrutiny. That’s why their only legally-binding DECISION has always been that there isn’t a case that can move forward through the appeals process.
No, we want the ability to hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the law and Constitution even after they are elected or appointed.
You know - that whole “petition the government for a redress of grievances” business that’s in that remote, obscure, piddly little thing called the First Amendment...
Thank you for continuing the discussion, you’ve really provoked a great deal of important narrative and analysis from Butterdezillion.
It is awfully difficult to have to take the role of a conniving, arrogant, smooth-tongued sand-bagger, and you have my respect for doing it so well.
You said: “There weren’t any “answers” to questions, just excuses not to answer them.”
PERFECTLY STATED. That’s exactly where we’re at.
I couldn’t believe it when I contacted the journalist for the Lincoln Journal-Star who was supposed to cover the Nebraska eligibility bill and found that he thought that every time a court refused to hear a case on its merits they were deciding that Obama was eligible. He said that birthers keep getting their legal answer but they just won’t accept it.
Sounded just like Blade Bryan.
IOW, he had no clue of what we’re even saying, or what has legally transpired. No clue. The basic legal facts of the whole issue went straight over his head, and he’s the one who’s supposed to be informing an ignorant public.
Once I corrected his “misunderstanding” on the basic legal facts of the issue, he told me he didn’t need any help doing his job and that it would suffice for him to see me at the hearing where he could laugh at my crazy theories.
Blade Bryan, do you work for the Lincoln Journal-Star, by any chance?
Better said that patriots want elections to be legal and that legal cases should be subject to the ‘We the People’s’ Constitution, Birther or non-Birther.
butterdezillion demanded: “I repeat: Name me one person whose case was heard on the merits.”
John Sidney McCain III.
The lies and garbage that you birthers spew are part of the price of our liberty. We chose to pay it, because the alternative is worse. There is a down side to the First Amendment: Freedom guaranteed will inevitably be freedom abused.
Do you not grasp how lucky you are to live in a nation where your lies and smear go unpunished? You complain about the “THE SYSTEM” while our system protects your right to spread your filth.
Our government is far from perfect, and eternal vigilance is a price that we the people must pay. Debunking such utter crap as spit by birthers or 9/11-inside-jobbers is a very small part of that.
butterdezillion wrote: “Rosa Parks just didnt like the answer that the whole system gave her.”
noinfringers2 wrote: Better said that patriots want elections to be legal and that legal cases should be subject to the We the Peoples Constitution, Birther or non-Birther.”
Then you have what you claim to want. The people elected Barack Obama, and birthers have lost a hundred-some cases in court and won zero.
Moreover, there’s another election coming up. Did that first round of stimulus that put us another seven hundred billion dollars in debt achieve what the pitchman-in-chief said it would? Are the good reasons for not giving our current president a second term a justification for the lie that he was never really president?
When did John Sidney McCain III have his case heard on the merits?
But that wasn’t what we were talking about so I’ll make it even more clear: Name me one person who has challenged Obama’s eligibility who has had their case heard on the merits.
I accept your ad hominems as an admission that you have no refutation for the substance of my arguments.
Also, by saying “Wow” to my “Rosa Parks just didnt like the answer that the whole system gave her. comment without noting that I was using it to show how absurd your own logic would be if applied to Rosa Parks.... shows that you must be a journalist. Only a journalist would crop off context to make it appear to a casual observer that I was saying the exact opposite of what I was saying. I was actually citing YOUR reasoning and pointing out that it was dead wrong.
I trust that your “Wow” is an acknowledgment of how silly that reasoning was. The system screwed Rosa Parks and she had every right to get from the courts a Constitutional “redress of grievances” for the way the SYSTEM screwed her. Yes, the system has authority to do certain things. But it never has authority when doing those things to violate the Constitution, and when it does, the judiciary is there to provide a redress for those grievances.
If the “political” system - including the electoral and vote-counting system prescribed and authorized by the Constitution - came up with a RESULT that violates the Constitution, it is the judiciary’s job to resolve that conflict or case arising out of the Constitution.
That’s precisely why the 20th Amendment says that even a President elect - the final result of the prescribed political process - can “fail to qualify” between the counting of the ballots and the inauguration. The only other qualifications besides being duly elected are the CONSTITUTIONAL qualifications, so the 20th Amendment provides a way for the CONSTITUTIONAL qualifications to be required by the judiciary if there is controversy or a case regarding someone’s qualifications - even when the political process itself failed to achieve a Constitutional result.
IOW, the Constitution can prescribe authority to do a process, but the RESULTS of that process are still always subject to Constitutional scrutiny. Like For Rosa Parks or anybody else who challenged the Constitutionality of the RESULTS. Congress, for instance, has the authority to count the ballots, but if they voted to throw out all the votes by Black electors simply because they are Black, that RESULT would be subject to Constitutional review by the courts. Though Congress has the Constitutional authority to do the job of counting the ballots, they never have the authority to violate the Constitution with their RESULTS. The job of the judiciary is to decide whether the RESULT of the process violates the Constitution, even if the process itself was authorized by the Constitution.
Or take another example. Suppose Congress decided that all abortions are illegal. They have the authority to make statutes, and are actually given the Constitutional responsibility of making statutes. So no problem that the Constitution as currently interpreted says that abortion is a protected Constitution “privacy” right, huh? If the eligibility judges’ logic was used, whatever statutes Congress makes are fine because the Constitution authorizes them to make statutes. The judiciary couldn’t rule on the Constitutionality of anything Congress enacts because that would be a “political issue”, since the Constitution gives the job of legislating to Congress.
We all know that’s not how it works. Even if somebody is authorized to do the process, they are never authorized to come up with an unconstitutional RESULT. The courts are ALWAYS able to scrutinize the Constitutionality of the RESULT. That’s what a “redress of grievances” is - holding the government itself accountable to obey the laws and Constitution.
May I say “WOW” to that !!!
butterdezillion wrote: “When did John Sidney McCain III have his case heard on the merits?”
The 2008 campaign.
butterdezillion wrote: “If the ‘political’ system - including the electoral and vote-counting system prescribed and authorized by the Constitution - came up with a RESULT that violates the Constitution, it is the judiciarys job to resolve that conflict or case arising out of the Constitution”.
On the other hand, debunking crank nonsense is not really their job.
They certainly gave an excuse based on the spin that I mentioned, and the result is that you're arguing against yourself. Good job, blade, just not too bright there.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained this issue in Berg v. Obama:
It's not an explanation, it's an excuse. The court makes a claim, and by what you're quoted, provides NOTHING to support the claim: "That grievance, too, is not one "appropriately resolved through the judicial process."" This is a claim, but it's NOT supported. Do you understand??
Sigh. The standing doctrine applies to the federal courts. Ankeny v. Daniels was a *state* case.
Sigh. Failure to state a claim was the "doctrine" applied in AvD, which is equivalent to the standing doctrine. Butter was right again, of course. You owe her an apology for your ignorant replies.
The determination of whether a plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for lack of standing is properly treated as a motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6)the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Journalists, who collectively aren't particularly smart, probably don't deserve this comparison. Blade's tactics are intentionally dishonest, and it's not clear if he's close to being as smart as the dumbest journalists out there.
Good journalism is an extremely worthy endeavor, and there are some who do it well. I don’t mean to slight those people.
I think they must be few and far between though. I’ve seen nobody in the MSM who is willing to speak the truth about the eligibility issue even if they know the truth. Instead they sound as if they are Blade Bryan. At one point I would have written it off as either confusion about who/what to believe or maybe just laziness, but my experiences with the editor of the Hutch News, reporter from the Lincoln Journal-Star, the Poynter Institute, and a myriad of online “news” sites tell me that at least for some of them it’s willful ignorance at best.
I’m angry at the news media. When I spoke to John Gale, Nebraska’s SOS, he said there was no need for official documentation because we could trust the news media to find any substantial story out there. Bah! I told him I found it incredible that he would say that. As I think of it, why do we even bother to count the votes, since the media would be more than happy to tell us what the election results are - and they can surely know that without any documentation!
I believe it is dangerous for anybody in this country to give the current crop of “journalists” automatic credibility. It would be incredibly tough to be a good journalist, and I think the good ones probably have to fight their own editors to come up with anything trustworthy so I don’t mean to place all the blame on the journalists, but the net result is that, for whatever reason, we can’t really trust the journalists to accurately present any story.
I would be ecstatic if somebody proved me wrong on this.
What was the name of the case that John McCain had heard on the merits regarding presidential eligibility?
And I missed any response regarding what case regarding Obama’s eligibility had ever been heard on the merits. What case(s) have been heard on the merits?
Debunking crank nonsense is absolutely their job, when there’s a legal claim before them. Should be an easy job at that, if it’s such nonsense, so why would they refuse to do it?