Skip to comments.Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
From Judge Carter's opinion:
"Plaintiffs argue that the injury they suffered was the deprivation of the right to run for office on a fair playing field against only candidates who meet the constitutional requirements to serve as President. Under this theory, the injury is not that of being deprived the chance to win, but being deprived the chance to compete only against legitimate candidates. If the Court accepts this concept of injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that they were all injured by having to compete against him in the national election.
Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the Court will turn to whether the political candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis and whether the political candidates can further clear the political question and separation of powers hurdles of justiciability."
"Ultimately, Plaintiffs alleged injury is having to respect the authority of a president who does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. Therefore, Plaintiffs injury would only be redressed by the removal of President Obama from office."
"In order for Plaintiffs alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.
"Because Plaintiffs did not file this action until the day President Obama took office and was sworn in, any action that this Court takes in this matter is not merely against Senator Obama as a political candidate but against President Obama, this countrys sitting president. In this case, the redressability prong of standing is intimately intertwined with and influenced by another justiciability conceptpolitical question and the separation of powers. Any action taken by the Court would necessarily infringe upon, at the very least, the Executive branch because it would involve a declaration regarding the qualifications of the President. Because the redressability analysis must consider what actions the Court may take against a sitting President, separation of powers concerns regarding the appropriate role of the judiciary sit at the forefront of the redressability analysis."
"Removing the President would not only affect the Executive branch, it may also infringe upon the power of the Legislative branch granted by the Constitution in matters of Presidential impeachment and succession. Defendants argue that the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to remove a president through Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which address impeachment, and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the removal of the president should he or she be unfit to serve.
The non-justiciability of an action on political question grounds is primarily a function of the separation of powers and pertains to the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210, 82 S. Ct. 691 (1962)."
"There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitutions mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting presidentremoval for any reasonis within the province of Congress, not the courts."
Whether you stay or leave makes no difference to me.
I just find it amusing when people complain, say they’re going to leave, then they don’t go anywhere but continue to complain that they’re going to have to leave.
If you do leave, don’t forget to write an opus!
You can’t leave without an opus.
It’s almost a rule.
Though you still seem incapable of understanding that someone can disagree with you without being a shill or lackey of your opposition. That much seems beyond hope.
But you keep tryin’, right liberal?
Isn’t it interesting how the obots keep focusing upon the flawed/false assertion that going to trial would be solely to remove the sitting Pres__ent from office? It is telling that they want to draw attention to a deceit as their reason for defending the Judge Carter ruling. Progressives love to cite lies as logos supporting their agenda.
I do try.
And you certainly seem to persist in presuming that those who disagree with you on certain topics or facts are liberals.
You also can’t serve in the Senate unless you are a citizen. Keyes was a last minute substitute for Republican opposition in the Senate race after Emmanual released the sealed terms of the previous opponent’s divorce proceedings, which caused him to withdraw. The Chicago Way.
Rather than learning, she is claiming that Judge Carter betrayed her.
Maybe that's because Orly persists in claiming that it is so. She also claims that if Obama were removed from office, Biden would be president for three months only and then there would be a special election - 'cause its done all the time in other countries you know.
This former soviet citizen, current Israeli citizen attempts to rewrite our Constitution, misuse our courts and actually has a following - it baffles me.
"Rather than learning, she is claiming that Judge Carter betrayed her."
In her defense, she immigrated from a country where extreme paranoia was probably an important survival technique. However, as a lawyer in our system, that trait can create problems when coupled with a large ego and a lack of formal legal training and experience. Her behaviour and arguments are more like what you would find coming from an average pro se litigant.
Most people that are good test takers could probably gather enough info to cram for and pass the bar in their state without any formal legal training, but that does not mean that they would be a good lawyer or successful in court proceedings.
First off, I would point you to RebelTex’s post at #557 so you can see how Judge Carter was actually very patient and helpful in outlining how a case could move forward in a way that our legal system (still the best in the world, in case you forgot) will accept. He’s actually doing her a big favor, and she will be too angry to notice, I’ll bet.
Secondly, one of my biggest problems with the birthers is that they do not see how any success that Taitz has in gaining discovery with her current arguments and tactics actually WEAKENS the judicial branch in the future. A group of radical lawyers who don’t share your political views could then file any number of specious, frivolous lawsuits against a Republican President and cause judicial gridlock. If you allow precedent for one, then you allow it for ALL.
She needs to fufill the demands of the forum, not have the forum bend to her demands.
Third, make up your mind and call Obama a fascist or a communist. They are not the same things, and to say so makes you look unintelligent.
So true, that’s an unspoken rule of the internet. How can we miss you if you won’ t go away?
Shove your sarcasm little man.
How about your Pres_ _ent is using fascist tactics to install his marxist agenda, Vicky? And your pitiful effort to insult my intelligence needs work, skippy.
Perhaps much of Orly’s feckless courtroom character is due to her lack of courtroom experience. Sad really ...
By levying a fine against her for saying her lawsuit was frivilous. This is assinine. There are lawsuits brought before the court that are truly frivilous and all we hear is how humorous they are. Never are fines levied for them. But this case has merit and to call it frivilous is, as I said, assinine.
You have no idea how funny that is.
Anyways. Disagreement without needing to be vindictive or puff your ego up through insults..
Look into it.
Buddy, you don’t even understand that I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on your intelligence.
In the transcript. The question of properly serving the defendants takes most of the session.
The fine was levied for her on inappropriate actions.
But this case has merit and to call it frivilous is, as I said, assinine.
Carter didn't call it frivolous. He didn't agree it had merit, but at least he didn't call if frivolous.
While I think Taitz is an idiot, in the extreme, and a poor excuse for an attorney - and I believe that the courts are the wrong place to seek "justice" (however you describe that) on this issue, I do believe that the fine and the label of "frivolous" was a bit premature on Land's part.
While Land was correct on the law and in his decision, he was incorrect in his temperament. There's a school of thought, and one I happen to subscribe to, that teaches judicial opinions should be delivered absent emotion. Land has almost as much emotion in his opinion as Taitz has in her pleadings - both are wrong. Now, I understand Land's pissed at getting called a "traitor", not just on a blog but in papers filed in his court, but a well-tempered jurist would rise about it. Also, the $20K sanction borders on ridiculous. Perhaps a sanction was in order, perhaps not, but $20K is excessive and is likely to be reduced on appeal.
Carter, on the other hand, has demonstrated not only an ability to delivery a calm and well-reasoned opinion, he doesn't crawl into the gutter with Taitz. He gave Taitz a tremendous amount of latitude, probably much more than would a less experienced jurist (as witnessed by Land) and all the opportunity in the world to succeed or fail. She failed.
Having said that, I think it's still likely that Carter will forward his ruling, and any supporting documentation he has in his possession, to the CalBar, which won't be a pleasant development for Taitz.
You reply: “You posts reek of it, don’t have to look far.”
In response to: “Disagreement without needing to be vindictive or puff your ego up through insults. Look into it. “
What you just said then was that my posts reek of disagreement without needing to be vindictive or puff your ego up through insults.
I am glad you are finally recognizing this.
Thank you. I hope you will learn to follow this example.
STOP posting to me!! I said ‘give it up’ - I’m not into your liberal whiny ways and GREAT NEED for constant dribble about NOTHING!
I was replying to your post to me.
That’s fair game.
Buddy? ... Bwahahahaha
I just wrote something my neighbors used to say to their dog when it was acting up.
Oh, I forgot. I needed to add something....
Siéntate y Cállate!
It is what came to mind after reading your garbage.
I’m not surprised.
Shouting “Shut up!” seems to be about your level of argument.
But that’s OK.
I only save it for “special” people.
From the looks of it you apply it to most anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Its more than lack of experience, its total lack of understanding of our Constitution and system both inside and outside the courtroom; for instance, promoting her case to a Supreme Court Justice at a book signing.
If Obama were using fascist tactics to further his marxist agenda, Orly wouldn't be doing what she's doing.
No. The Judge says there would be lots of hearings to establish whether proper service had happened, and encouraged Orly to redo service to avoid future un-necessary hearings. Nowhere does Carter say that the original service was incorrect.
By the way, I van always spot one who when asked for a quote refers to the whole document.
You’re just another Obama shill.
My mistake. It was Judge Land that called it frivilous.
I like your summation. However, do you not agree that Taitz should be heard on the case? If not, who will hear her case? If no one, then it means our Constitution is a living document and will be used at the discretion of the presiding judge.
And had Taitz done it correctly to begin with then there would be no need for hearings and no need to do it again. But doing things correctly is not the Orly way.
By the way, I van always spot one who when asked for a quote refers to the whole document.
It's called "knowing what we're talking about" and I can understand why it's confusing to you.
Youre just another Obama shill.
And you're just another Birther whackjob.
No, I do not. Since the inauguration, this matter is no longer meets the requirements set forth in the principle of justiciability. Since Obama became a sitting President, the only way to remove him is via the Impeachment process.
If the right plaintiff(s) would have come forward before the inauguration, and if an injunction would have been granted temporarily suspending the swearing-in of Obama, then perhaps this is something that could have been handled by the courts.
I would add, however, that even with the right plaintiffs and the right filing date, it would be dubious if there's even enough evidence to support a trial. In American jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and that include the burden to demonstrate it has a reasonable case before motions for discovery are granted. To date, I have seen nothing about this case (this case being Obama wasn't born in America) that a court wouldn't summarily dismiss as conjecture, speculation, innuendo and rumor - that's not going to get plaintiffs a "day in court" in the US.
Furthermore, even if it were, Obama has, via his HI Certification of Live Birth, prima facie evidence of his birth in HI. That document, coupled with an affidavit or direct testimony from the appropriate HI officials would be virtually unimpeachable evidence, creating a challenge for plaintiffs that would be insurmountable. Plaintiffs wouldn't make it passed summary judgment, and a court wouldn't violate Obama's right to privacy on a hunch that his vault copy said something different. Plaintiffs would have to present real evidence - not conjecture - that his vault copy actually said something different.
It's a bit of a Catch-22, but American law puts a premium on a right to privacy. It's just the way the law works.
I recognize you'll disagree with this. You're probably convinced that he was indeed born someplace else. But, as a litigator with over 25 years of experience, that's how things would unfold in US federal court, in my estimation.
“If the right plaintiff(s) would have come forward before the inauguration, and if an injunction would have been granted temporarily suspending the swearing-in of Obama, then perhaps this is something that could have been handled by the courts.”
And if this is what had happened the courts would have said that since he wasn’t THE president then there is no case to be heard. The courts were and are not going to hear this case no matter what. It is dereliction on their part and it has put a stain on our Constitution.
I don’t know where he was born but by securing all medical records pertaining to his birth I will believe that he is guilty of being an illegal president. He brings it on himself.
Candidate eligibility cases are heard virtually every election year in state courts, and sometimes even in federal court, all across the country. In fact, it's not uncommon at all. The most frequent challenge to a candidate's eligibility comes when a candidate perhaps doesn't live a the appropriate district, or county or city or that the candidate didn't acquire the requisite number of qualifying petition signatures and his/her challenger (or the challenger's party) will file suit to obtain an injunction to keep that candidate's name from appearing on the ballot or from assuming the office if actually elected. Again, happens all the time.
The office of the President - or Senator/Representative - is a little different by virtue of the fact that these are Constitutionally prescribed offices. Once they actually take office, the Judiciary is either limited or completely foreclosed from removing them - that is something that is Constitutionally in the sole purview of the Legislature.
If someone with legitimate standing - Like McCain or according to Judge Carter, perhaps even Keyes - would have filed for injunctive relief prior to the election (presumably to keep Obama's name off the ballot) or prior to the Inauguration, to keep him from assuming the office, AND they had credible evidence that he indeed wasn't born in the country, I have NO DOUBT that case would have been heard, even by the most liberal of judges.
The argument that Obama doesn't qualify as an NBC because of the foreign-national status of his father is far less compelling, IMHO. But, I suppose that it's possible, perhaps even likely, that argument would have been heard as well. It may not have prevailed, but it probably would have been heard.
You are wrong. The case includes the fact that he has admitted that he was a British Subject at birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen.
Secondly, the Courts have jurisdiction over fraud in the election process.
Thirdly, even an elected President can be removed by Quo Warranto in the DC Court. That was set by Congress, so they can’t argue about the Courts interfearing.
Just needs someone with standing to do a Quo Warranto in DC.
And people wouldn’t be making all the hysterical statements about the death of the Constitution on these threads.
“Once they actually take office, the Judiciary is either limited or completely foreclosed from removing them - that is something that is Constitutionally in the sole purview of the Legislature.”
I agree with this. HOWEVER, I don’t believe that the judiciary is not capable of determining the eligibility of a sitting president. It would still be up to the legislature to remove the president if found to be ineligible by the court.
“AND they had credible evidence that he indeed wasn’t born in the country,”
That’s the whole gist of the problem. If a candidate doesn’t provide the information then how is anyone supposed to have credible evidence. That is what Taitz is asking for. Besides, no judge would have heard any of this before the election because the Secretary of State for each state certified the ballot and the judge would have said that that was good enough.