How does anything the plaintiffs did or didn’t do change whether Obama has qualified for the position he seeks? Either he’s qualified or he isn’t. No lawyer or judge can bargain away the people’s right to have a candidate who is actually eligible for the job. That right of the people is firmly anchored in Georgia’s statute and can’t be nullified by tricksy lawyerly garbage.
Obama has presented ZERO legal evidence of being qualified for the job. There is no way a judge can legally say he is qualified UNLESS THAT DECISION IS BASED ON “JUDGE’S KNOWLEDGE” - a decision based on something besides actual probative evidence.
But when you reject it and ask that the entire case be judged solely on the merits of your argument - not Obama’s defense but solely on the plaintiffs argument - then things like this happen. The only pertinent fact to determine eligibility was where Obama was born. When one defendant stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii and the other does not challenge that fact, then they have done Obama’s work for him. That is what stipulated means - that particular fact is accepted by the court as true.