Replies

“What does that mean in plain English?”

The reason Judge Carter is even proceeding (despite questions on Standing and Jurisdiction) is that Orly proposes a conundrum:

As she said at the last hearing (perhaps not as clear as it could be stated), is that impeachment is not appropriate because impeachment can only be used for a legitimate president (not to mention that impeachment is NOT a Judicial function anyway). Since Obama – as Orly argues – is not legitimate, he does not qualify for impeachment or any government “protection” or representation “as president” and thus justifies why the suit may be tried OUT of the DC Court.

Orly contends that Carter’s venue is mandated to use Quo Warranto ONLY IF the Judge decides Obama is legitimate for the position of President. In other words, Orly said not only can CARTER take the “Quo Warranto” case, but he is oath-bound to do so.

Think about it – keeping in mind that Orly must argue this as if her side is 100% CORRECT (just as any attorney does in court):

How do you REMOVE a “corrupt” and illegitimate president, when Quo Warranto rightly or wrongly “protects” him?

Does Quo Warranto apply if he is indeed illegitimate in the first place?

Here's a question that Judge Carter proposes:

WHO protects the rights of a Political THIRD Party in the primarily two-party political system of the Legislature (the US Congress)?

CARTER then discussed the two-party system and viability of third-party candidates, and expressed that he thinks having the ability for third-party candidates is important, and then he said he still wants to know why no one has raised this issue. (from the WaveyDavey report).

The way Orly is proceeding is that first you must establish if he is illegitimate, and that’s done through Discovery. If Discovery proves damning to Mr. Obama, IMO, the SCOTUS may snatch it up right away as this case challenges the very notion of Quo Warranto to a "seemingly" legitimate President.

That, in my opinion, is what Orly proposes – and what give Judge Carter pause.

As he said to Orly and Kreep at the end, “I’m most concerned about standing,” and to the US attorneys he said, “I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.” Then, turning back to Orly and Kreep, he said “if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.”

I think Judge Carter may be attempting to carve out new case law out of existing precedence in this unique situation — tweaking "checks and balances" in cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and others — to put forth a decision on Mr. Barack Hussein Obama – the candidate, not the President.