Posted on 05/20/2010 11:35:49 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Oh please.
Will do.
:)
The Andrade Court was articulating an equity principle regarding the fact that an AG has a conflict of interest with people that they appointed which I believe can be applied directly to the conflict of interest that Obama has with the AG and US Attorney that he appointed.
In both cases, the same principle articulated in Andrade might apply with an qualified “interested person” as plaintiff/appellant:
“The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court.”
Regarding Obama’s eligibility, so far “requiring all appellants to convince the Attorney General (or US Attorney) to file a quo warranto action” has effectively been a bar to their access to court.
A procedurally correct quo warranto with a proper “interested person” as plaintiff has not yet been filed in the correct district court in DC, so no one knows how successful such a case might be.
I suspect that Lakin is heading in that direction and also the Chrysler dealers. Let's just see how it plays out.
A procedurally correct quo warranto with a proper “interested person” as plaintiff has not yet been filed in the correct district court in DC, so no one knows how successful such a case might be.
I suspect that Lakin is heading in that direction and also the Chrysler dealers. Let’s just see how it plays out.
It will be interesting to see if Chief Judge Lamberth’s opinion that ONLY “an elected representative of the people” can qualify as an “interested person” is upheld by higher courts.
Perhaps Lamberth who is known as a conservative judge is hinting to future plaintiffs to get an elected federal official such as a Congressperson or a Senator to file a quo warranto suit or at least to enter a suit as a co-plaintiff????
Nice try Obot.
Go back to your Obama shrine and bow some more.
Do you know what is worse than a troll on FR?
A retarded troll on FR.
Go shove your pathetic, childish projecting where the sun don’t shine, EL GORDO!
Your anti-American ramblings will come back to haunt you one day. Bet on it.
Hopefully everyone here sees who and what you are.
Post all the baloney you want. I’m done responding to the village idiot.
I think most of the posters can see through your conservative facade to your totalitarian beliefs like those of your buddy Obama.
You’re so full of lying crap that it’s impossible that you believe your own spew.
“I think most of the posters can see through” [sic] *you* like crystal clear glass.
Your desperate attempt to turn the tables on actual conservatives by accusing them of exactly what you are and what you do is feeble, lame, and utterly transparent.
Since some of your buddies are using the same talking points the last few days, it’s obvious that Axelrod, Cass Sunstein or whatever his name is, or some other bossdude or bossgal is emailing out the memo of what to say and how.
It ain’t working, you’re fooling no one except maybe yourselves; if that.
One of us up the thread called him doing freshman class psychology and/or reversal psychology...something like that. It's laughable.
Gordo is like some village idiot, simpleton, Rumplestilskin type.
I just imagine him jumping around a campfire, with a dunce cap on his head, all the while thinking he is entertaining and enlightening the townsfolk.
But in reality everyone is pointing and laughing at the ignorant imbecile.
So you got your latest talking points from the DNC, I guess.
You Obots never cease to astound me.
Precisely. I think there may have been one or two idiots who tried this line of nonsense during GWB's term (arguing that he had stolen the 200 election and therefore was not legitimately CinC). They didn't get anywhere, either.
Irrelevant. If there was any legitimate reason to believe that Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible to be elected President, it was the responsibility of the electors to vote for somebody else who was eligible, and of the Congress to refuse to certify the result if the electors failed to do so. Neither of those things happened. End of discussion, so far as the Constitutional provisions for electing the President of the United States are concerned.
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.