Judge Carter Ruling on MTD

scribd ^ | 10/29/09 | Judge Carter

[Elderberry]

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD

[El Gato]

Standing is a very well defined judicial concept.

The concept is well defined, but the rules seem to be constantly changing. Generally in the direction of "no standing" for those whose interest, real though it is, is general rather than specific. It wasn't always that way.

They find "standing" for non-citizen, non-resident, aliens captured on the battlefield, but not for US citizens wishing to see that the Constitution be enforced?

That sticks in a lot of craws. Mine included.

[kukaniloko]

Then get yourself detained on the battlefield and push for discovery.

[El Sordo]

“So is denying folks access to the next to last box. That’s not helpful at all.”

Who’s been denied this?

[Drew68]

Since when do Conservatives advocate rewriting the Constitution?

To be fair, these birthers who call themselves "conservatives" and, most laughably, "patriots" weren't looking to have the Constitution re-written. Instead, they were looking for an activist judiciary that views the Constitution as a "living document" from which to manufacture favorable rulings out of thin air and reverse a presidential election because they weren't happy with the results.

They thought they had found such an activist in Judge Carter. No doubt today is a setback for their wholly undemocratic and un-American crusade though I suspect they will soon try and spin things differently.

[El Gato]

Before the inauguration. Not now.

Why only before? There is no right to run for nor to be elected President. What specific injury did McCain suffer? No McCain would not have had standing either, although it is nice to pretend that he would have, if only he'd acted "in time". But alas, he didn't, and so the case is now moot. Somewhat like Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution.

[TheBigJ]

Reads to me like the judge opened some doors in the future but also sidestepped matters out of fear and tremendous pressure based on “standing”; for example, not much wording on Hawaiian loopholes and revealing a long form birth certificate in limited discovery then he could have dismissed the case and let Congress deal with it.

Anyway bring on the next round. There’s more to come. Obozo the clown isn’t out of the woods yet.

[wideminded]

Dear FRiends: If you have the photo of that Chinese leader with the Hawaiian COLB, could you please post it as well as any other info. related to the foreigners with Hawaiian COLBs to “BigGuy22”?

It's not that hard to find if you google "Sun Yat-Sen birth certificate Hawaii". But it's not so clear why that document is relevant since it was issued 55 years before Hawaii became a state.

[taxesareforever]

“Because, after all, the other appeals have been so successful...”

I agree but this judge was completely out of line. I don’t envision any judge hearing the case and if they do it will just be a matter of courtesy. This is too hot for any of them to handle. They are more afraid of this issue than an issue involving negativity toward muslims.

[TheBigJ]

Likewise Judge Carter, nobody gives a rat’s ass about your opinions on how a percentage voted for Zero or how a mother would be dissappointed her son was ineligible. Your worries about removal mean nothing,

was FRAUD COMMITTED OR NOT? Is Zero A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BORN ON U.S. SOIL?

DIDN’T THINK SO YOU FRIGGIN COWARD.

[El Gato]

The Supreme Court has ruled that: "The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient.

But the case you actually linked to, Ryder v. US 515 U.S. 177 (1995), would seem more on point. Inthat case they ruled that the actions of the Court below were not valid de facto.

The reasoning was that the claim was "based on the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution--a claim that there has been a "trespass upon the executive power of appointment," McDowell, supra, at 598, rather than a misapplication of a statute "

That sounds a lot more like the case of an ineligible office holder than the usual de facto office holder who was holding the office in violation of a statue that had been misapplied or misinterpreted.

[OldDeckHand]

"What specific injury did McCain suffer? "

Every year, and all across the country, ballot access for specific candidates is challenged by opposition parties or candidates. Those cases are heard on the merits, and sometimes they prevail.

Most commonly, these challenges have nothing to do with the age or citizenship status of the allegedly ineligible candidate. But rather, they usually surround the qualifying petitions the candidate has collected and submitted and specifically whether or not the candidate has indeed presented either the requisite number of signatures, or there's a question with regard to the quality/authenticity of those respective signatures.

Standing and justiciability are never an issue in these cases that involve legitimate opposition parties or candidates.

[wideminded]

The mind boggles at the prospect of a criminal investigation of Orly's alleged subordination of perjury in which the two folks who filed affidavits in Carter's court alleging the perjury were Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith!!!

Yes, that would have a lot of entertainment value. But Carter did say that he had "several" such affidavits. I think several usually means more than two.

[BP2]

All hail Taitz! All hail Taitz! Oh say can you see, by the dawn's Orly light...

So, that's you're best argument? Pretty weak. Go back and look at my comments. Whereas I don't bash Orly like yourself, I do point out shortcomings in her arguments. And I offer original legal critique, as opposed to cutting and pasting from the Dunn/Bauer talking points memo.

All things being equal, the side questioning Obama's Eligibility is always more virtuous than the side that gives Obama aid and comfort.

As such — all things being equal — being one of the "good and gentle townsfolk of Locker C-18" would be FAR better than the alternative:

Whoa, Non-Sequitur, is that YOU he's point at in the third row?!

The Locker People of C-18 CERTAINLY seem to have a better grip on reality.

[El Gato]

Since Congress is not going to and should not impeach a sitting president based on suspicion, the question is how do you get the evidence.

Congress can subpoena witness and I believe documents as well. People are sworn when they give testimony before Congressional committees.

Impeachment is like a grand jury proceeding, although it generally takes more evidence to impeach than to indict for an "ordinary" crime, because of the political ramifications. But the trial would bee in the Senate, and since the House acts as the prosecution, they could get whatever they needed via Congressional subpoena.

Of course the 'rat Congress isn't going to do any of that. Not even if "The minority" requests hearings, IIRC, they must get the concurrence of the majority to issue such subpoenas.

[mlo]

"No doubt today is a setback for their wholly undemocratic and un-American crusade though I suspect they will soon try and spin things differently."

Speaking of which, any word from Orly yet?

[mlo]

"Since Congress is not going to and should not impeach a sitting president based on suspicion, the question is how do you get the evidence."

Congress can hold hearings and subpeona evidence. They don't have to wait for impeachment to do this, it can be done any time they choose, and they could impeach if the evidence indicated that was justified.

[browardchad]

Speaking of which, any word from Orly yet?

Nothing on her blog, but this might be the harbinger of things to come.

[Kevmo]

I believe there is a rule about what not to do if someone clearly asks you to not post to them. You might want to find out what that rule is.
***There is no such rule

“Do not post to me” - Repost
Free Republic | 10/06/09 | Admin Moderator

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2356290/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1888013/posts

[El Gato]

Foreign terrorists and illegal aliens have standing

Have standing to do what? Challenge who is the President?

Actually, yes.

Boumediene v. Bush

[wideminded]

"And finally, we have elected a man that no one really knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen"

But apparently he did once work at a Baskin-Robbins.