All I’m doing is reviewing as many as I can of the actual written opinions of 207 original jurisdiction lawsuits in Obama eligibility actions; 90 state and federal appellate level rulings; and 25 petitions for Writs of Certiorari and/or applications for stays, injunctions or extraordinary writs that have been heard in conference at the Supreme Court of the United States. I am attempting to understand the rationale for judges or justices’ rulings of those rulings that are available to be read on the Internet.
There are reasons why a legal argument fails 322 times in a row. I think that it might be a good idea to try to learn something from those losses for the development of different and hopefully more effective legal strategies.
You are confusing me with the judges and justices that have ruled on the issue.
My position is that America likes winners. Every time another civil suit on Obama eligibility goes down to defeat, it strengthens Obama in the mind of the average citizen.
From what I have read in actual rulings, Judges have tended to give short shrift to Minor v. Happersett as having anything to do with presidential eligibility. For example, this is what I mean by “short shrift:”
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
If the judiciary and Congress can’t be influenced, what good are objective philosophical legal debates on blogs?
Sure, they dress it up in a bunch of legal jargon, but most of their decisions are based on what the herd thinks, not on efforts to understand original intent.
Why you think that anything can be learned from herd mentality and group think, I do not know. From my perspective it is pointless to look for a deeper meaning in the commentary of this fraternity. There is no truth or insight to be found there, merely mindless repetition.