Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

3rd Circuit Affirms Kerchner Dismissal & Orders Appellants to Show Cause (Possible Sanctions)
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ^ | 07/02/2010 | Judges: Sloviter, Barry and Hardiman

Posted on 07/02/2010 1:23:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last
Order to Show Cause
1 posted on 07/02/2010 1:23:11 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

They turn down your case because Obama is “The Won”, then they want you to show cause why you brought the case.

MAYBE IF THEY LISTENED TO THE CASE THEY WOULD SEE THE CAUSE.


2 posted on 07/02/2010 1:26:31 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Sooner or later zero/$$swipe will be GONE!


3 posted on 07/02/2010 1:28:44 PM PDT by taxtruth (Something really stinks In The Federal Government/Mafia and I think it's BO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Sooner or later zero/$$swipe will be GONE!


4 posted on 07/02/2010 1:28:48 PM PDT by taxtruth (Something really stinks In The Federal Government/Mafia and I think it's BO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Turning to the argument of Kerchner and Nelsen that their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution “increase[ ] their adversarial posture,” Appellants’ Br. at 56, no court has found that a plaintiff established “injury in fact” simply because s/he had once taken such an oath. Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 502(a) (requiring all military personnel to take an oath “swear[ing] . . . [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”). Kerchner’s assertion of standing on the ground that he, who has been retired from the Naval Reserves since 1995, may be required to serve the Commander in Chief as a combatant in the case of an “extreme national emergency,” Kerchner, 669 F.Supp.2d at 483 (quotation and citation omitted), is to no avail because it is conjectural. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.


5 posted on 07/02/2010 1:31:10 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxtruth
Sooner or later zero/$$swipe will be GONE!

Sooner...January 2013
Later...January 2017.

In the meantime...ELECT CONSERVATIVES!!!

6 posted on 07/02/2010 1:37:06 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
MAYBE IF THEY LISTENED TO THE CASE THEY WOULD SEE THE CAUSE

That's a knee-jerk response. You should read the full decision. It is very clear that the 3rd Circuit Panel did "listen." They read and considered the briefs, cited each of the appellants' claims in their response, and took care to respond to each claim (citing precedents for their decisions) and even acknowledged the appellants' frustration with the whole process.

7 posted on 07/02/2010 1:40:24 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; little jeremiah; Fred Nerks; LucyT; STARWISE

*ping*


8 posted on 07/02/2010 1:42:24 PM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Its only ok to sue Palin. What about the part of the lawsuit concerning the lack of vetting ?


9 posted on 07/02/2010 2:00:15 PM PDT by culpeper (He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; OldDeckHand; editor-surveyor; Man50D; hoosiermama; LucyT; Fred Nerks; ...

“...damages and costs for pursuing a frivolous appeal.”

But....World Nut Daily said “Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2544087/posts

Admittedly, OldDeckHand wrote:

” The 3rd Circuit ISN’T going to “consider whether Obama is even American”. What they are considering is if the trial court erred when it granted defendant’s MTD, based on the lack of standing by plaintiffs. That’s it. If the 3rd Circuit three-judge panel concludes that it (the lower court) did err in granting the MTD, then they’ll remand to the district court. Since they’ve not scheduled oral arguments in the case, it’s not encouraging for appellants.”

But still...they don’t seem to have considered the case on its merits...or even that it HAD merit. Of course, the ‘standing problem’ was described here:

“We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.””

Could it be that ODH was right, and the superb WND was...wrong?


10 posted on 07/02/2010 2:21:06 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

They read and considered the briefs, cited each of the appellants’ claims in their response, and took care to respond to each claim (citing precedents for their decisions) and even acknowledged the appellants’ frustration with the whole process.


Yeah, and your mother wears combat boots!


11 posted on 07/02/2010 2:27:07 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

WND can’t be wrong because Obama is bad.


12 posted on 07/02/2010 2:28:14 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Could it be that ODH was right, and the superb WND was...wrong?

This constitutes heresy around here. lol

13 posted on 07/02/2010 2:28:36 PM PDT by verity (Obama, the bullshit and rhetoric President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

It would be interesting in this case for a judge to explain exactly ‘Who’ has standing.

Then too, I wonder how many laws are written wherein no one has standing to sue.

Maybe it is just the Constitution in which no one can have standing!


14 posted on 07/02/2010 2:29:34 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The judge must not have been to the supermarket lately:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2545580/posts


15 posted on 07/02/2010 2:30:05 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I also find it perplexing that nation of Mexico has standing to sue in US Courts against the Arizona statute.

But our own citizens have no standing in the court system.


16 posted on 07/02/2010 2:31:48 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Could it be that ODH was right, and the superb WND was...wrong?

Wing Nut Daily wrong? Say it ain't so! And I've always held in such high regard their "We found it on a blog somewhere and omitted the parts that didn't fit the story" style of investigative journalism.

17 posted on 07/02/2010 2:36:34 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Yeah, and your mother wears combat boots!

I remember when that was an insult. :)

18 posted on 07/02/2010 2:38:13 PM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas
I also find it perplexing that nation of Mexico has standing to sue in US Courts against the Arizona statute.

Mexico does not have standing to sue. They filed a "friend of the court" brief, which is something very different.

19 posted on 07/02/2010 2:40:52 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas
It would be interesting in this case for a judge to explain exactly ‘Who’ has standing. Then too, I wonder how many laws are written wherein no one has standing to sue. Maybe it is just the Constitution in which no one can have standing!

The rule that the Supreme Court has followed since at least the 1920s is, essentially, that if everyone has standing, no one has standing-- if the allegedly-illegal act affects everyone in the whole country, it is up to the elected branches of government to fix it. That is why no court ever ruled on any of the myriad challenges to the constitutionality of the Vietnam War, for example.

20 posted on 07/02/2010 2:44:37 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson