Competent attorneys know how to “judge shop” without breaking ethics rules. You pick the jurisdiction you will file in and the judges you want to hear your case in order to up the odds of getting favorable rulings.
For example, Obama received only 24% of the vote in Utah, 27% in Wyoming, 28% in Nebraska’s 3rd Congressional District, 33% in Idaho and Oklahoma, 38% in North Dakota, 39% in Tennessee, and 40% in South Dakota.
Each of those jurisdictions had nearly no challenges to Obama’s eligibility.
Your attempts at argumentum ad hominem are funny.
And your acknowledgement of this sort of game playing simply lends strength to my argument that most court decisions nowadays (and possibly ever previously) are more about what a Judge wants to believe, than any sort of objective basis for law.
The fact that you *CAN* "Judge shop" demonstrates that the results are heavily weighted by bias, and so therefore are subjective. This is just what i've been saying for some time. We wouldn't be getting so many 5/4 splits on the Supreme court with the "Usual Suspects" generally on the same side, if Judges were really objective.
Your attempts at argumentum ad hominem are funny.
I know. That's why I do them that way. Laughter rocks the Highest throne. :)
We all like to regard ourselves as thoughtful, intellectual and wise, but closer to the truth is a comparison to monkeys hooting at each other. We are genuinely moved more by monkey emotions than we are by cognitive discourse.
For the vast majority of people, emotion beats logic every day of the week.