Replies

Start here. Its how to read a case. And, if I am so wrong, how come the Indiana court went right where I did? I’m sorry, are you better at reading Wong, than a judge? I have not seen any evidence that you can do anything but pick up random bits of language and go off half-cocked on it. And post monkey pictures. And call Obama a lawyer.

I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you leap before you look in an effort to be part of the debate. You could do the same thing by asking relevant questions. And, you still have a Blackstone problem, or two.

So: start here:

http://volokh.com/files/howtoreadv2.pdf

parsy, who is awaiting your “jumped-to-conclusion” and your monkey picture

Hey parsy I've given you more than a hint to why that silly dismissal in Indiana doesn't mean squat.

Here it is again in verbatim:

-------

Friday, February 26, 2010 3:02:47 PM · 1,425 of 1,909
Red Steel to parsifal; DJ MacWoW

The Indiana court's opinion uses as their "crown jewel" the NBC comment (seen below) right before they hold to dismiss the case in the next sentence.

The comment comes from an INS case that is unsupportable by any Supreme Court precedence. It's a comment out of the blue, which I suspect, was spoken by the alien's lawyer to elicit emotional appeal to get the case reopened and that a liberal judge felt pity who placed it in his opinion. Furthermore, the Indiana court never said categorically that Wong Ark or Barack Obama are natural born citizens.

Here is my last post to you below as it seems things need to be repeated to you over and over again:

------------

Friday, February 26, 2010 2:20:21 AM · 1,250 of 1,408
Red Steel to parsifal; BP2; DoctorBulldog; mojitojoe; Fred Nerks; bgill

Taking a closer look at that Indiana court decision.

Which says "...see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)"

http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156

These Indiana judges concluded by using an INS deportation case to quote in their dismissal which was accepted as fact by the sitting circuit Judge Cudahy, appointed by Jimmy Carter, that is irrelevant to his deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer of the illegal alien.

You've got to be kidding me Parsy if you think this Indiana court case, you love to post, could really stand up to any scrutiny. These guys threw ink to paper just to sweep this case under the rug. If I can shoot holes in it from the early hours in the morning think of what a good team would do with it. It is pure folly barely worth the paper it's written on.

> I’m sorry, are you better at reading Wong, than a judge?

Yes ... I am saying that! Save your Liberal, new-age, Progressive sanctimonious “Judges don't get it wrong” crap for someone else who just fell off the turnip truck and doesn't know any better!

To put it bluntly, judges f*ck up all the time! Just look at now-Justice Sotomayor — several of her cases were reversed BY the SCOTUS before she was kicked upstairs TO the SCOTUS by Barry Soetoro. Incorrect Judicial opinions are the very basis of our Appeals process. One does NOT even need a law degree to KNOW that Sotomayor's decision regarding preferential treatment of Black firemen over White firemen was FLAWED!!

And do you really want to have a legal debate about Roe v Wade and how misinterpretation of the law led to that screwed up SCOTUS Opinion?! Laws which govern such issues should be determined at the State level, and ANY SCOTUS Court should know this!

A twist of an old legal saying is that “interpretation is nine-tenths of the law.” As such, I assume you also know that SCOTUS judgments HAVE been reversed by later SCOTUS Courts. The first case that pops into my head is Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, which was overturned by the 14th Amendment and, in part, by the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873. There are other examples of SCOTUS reversals in SCOTUS Court history.

In more modern times, the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion — regarding handguns in Washington DC — politely suggested that the 1939 United States v. Miller SCOTUS Opinion was incomplete and poorly written, leading subsequent lower court judges to “overread” Miller's findings. That led to nearly 70 years of laws and misinterpreted lower court rulings that improperly curtailed the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans!

So, yes, I'm also saying that YOU and all of the other After-Birthers are GUILTY of “overreading” and misapplying Wong Kim Ark v US in the same manner! That 1898 SCOTUS Opinion was NEVER intended to determine Presidential Eligibility in the eyes of our Framers — a FACT that you After-Birthers KNOW to be true, but just choose to ignore!

Now ... have another banana, monkey-boy!