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.
SNIP
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 ...
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, you’re saying it’s 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 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.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 President’s 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 Constitution’s 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 Berg’s 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, Obama’s 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.
butterdezillion asked:
"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.
butterdezillion wrote:
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.
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.