Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
Isn't there an upper limit to the deception faux conservatives will be granted at FR any more, Jim? This poster is one of several who claim to be conservatives yet tout this crap that it is proper to only allow legal standing only to those strong enough to threaten the system ... like a bonefide candidate such as Keyes is not allowed to have a fair election because he could not possibly get enough polling data electoral votes to be elected! That is just plain sick, and to continue to protect such crap feeders pretending to be conservatives at FR is becoming too disgusting to continue enduring.
What reason, well that is the real question???
It is the Left who assassinates US Presidents and I can not see that the Left is unhappy with Obama. He is doing exactly what Soros bought him to do. There is no doubt he is perfectly protected by the Rinos in Congress and the legal system in violating the constitution at will. No one has any standing except, maybe, some members of the Congress. That is not even guarenteed when there is no constitution or when the constitutions means whatever the Left wants it to mean.
If you had been following this all along you would know that Hawaii has produced COLBs for KNOWN foreigners during the time period in question. A Hawaiian COLB does NOT prove date or place of birth — only the documents on file in the Vital Statistics Office in HI (the ones that are now sealed) would prove that one way or another.
Also, if this was acceptable proof, and everything was in order why hasn’t Obama — through ANY of the cases brought — simply produced the document to the court and end ALL of this in a moment??? Instead he spends 1.7 MILLION+ to keep ALL of his documents secret? Who does that except someone with something to hide?
Is repeating Scalia and Roberts’ theories on standing not conservative enough for you?
Judge Carter said nothing like that at all and your reply is disingenuous. You have taken his quotes out of context. When you quote Judge Carter as saying, "Where to draw the line..." he is setting up the question, not providing an answer. He then proceeds to answer the question by noting that the Court is troubled by the very act of drawing lines.
Which is just the opposite of what you implied by taking the quotes out of context.
The quote you provided: "... then all candidates would have standing to sue the President..." is immediately followed by the sentence from Judge Carter: "Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement...", which is an indication that Keyes DID meet this aspect of standing (or at least it was never rejected, as you assert). Judge Carter then explores the possibility of what the court can do about the injury (and determines that the court does not have jurisdiction to do anything).
Which is a long way from saying that the Congress has standing to sue in a civil proceeding like this one.
Which is nothing like I said. I never made mention that Congress would take this action to a civil proceeding.
You will NEVER get an answer to that because of all the judiciary mumbo-jumbo “skating”!!!
To me, that is saying the same thing. He is setting her up for punishment - disbarment or prosecution. Prosecution may be difficult considering what slime balls are involved and accusing Orly.
"Then why has Hussein spent $1.7 million to date to keep his birth information secret,..."
...is a meaningful response to my statement that the judge did enforce the constitution.
"...and how can the judge rule on the question without demanding to see personally the documentation that 0bama is in fact, "natural born"?"
He didn't rule on the question of whether or not Obama is in fact eligible. He found, as was expected and repeatedly explained before the fact by several of us, that he doesn't have the constitutional power to address that question. It is a matter for Congress to decide.
By recognizing that limitation on his own power, and deciding where the CONSTITUTION placed that power, he was defending the constitution.
Perhaps he didn’t write it - he left it to his new law clerk.
He did not have to issue an injuction. All he had to do was allow discovery and refer it to Congress for action or inaction.
Producing a COLB is not an issue. Show me one COLB from the time period in question that falsely states someone was born in Hawaii. THAT is the issue.
"This poster", as you put it, is one of the dozens of practicing attorneys that have tried - to the best of their ability - to provide some insight into the way the law actually works, and not the way so many here seem to wish the law to work.
And when he does, people like you attack him personally and viciously - questioning his conservative bona fides and political intentions.
Let me be clear, it is NOT CONSERVATIVE to want a judge to set aside the Constitution, the US Code and countless principles of American jurisprudence, so that he or she may find in a manner that you agree with. This judge, like all the other judges in these cases, have followed the law to the letter. Not one has been overturned on appeal, and the Supreme Court hasn't found any of these cases to be compelling enough to even hear.
That should tell you something. And, if it doesn't, then you are beyond listening to reason.
This is getting sickening and it proves that Freerepublic has 'evolved' and is no longer a conservative website monitored to sweep up the trash that spills here from the DNC.
Not very long, more like USSoA. Must run now. Glenn Beck is on in 20 minutes go and watch!!!
The puprose of discovery is to help decide a court case, not give something to pass along to Congress. You are really asking for a fairly activist role of a Judge if you want him to order discovery on an issue he can’t by law decide.
Courts have no power to order discovery unless it is in aid of a pending lawsuit which is within the court's jurisdiction. Courts can't order discovery for the use of Congress. Congress has its own subpoena power if it wants to use it.
You think a Soviet-like government would allow you to watch a show like beck in the next 20 minutes?
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.