“If the “legal precedent” was all that strong as cited in all these cases, why is there a need to cite all the challenges and not just the legal precedent itself??”
__
That’s a question I think you have to address to Messrs. Begley and Tepper, or at least to some other experienced litigator.
My guess? They would like to emphasize the point that the judicial community overwhelmingly reads WKA to say what they think it says.
Of course, your side is equally free to show how other judges view the matter differently. The more judicial support Team Obama can show, compared to what you have, seems to me to strengthen their argument enormously.
But that’s just my opinion. Feel free to ask them.
What??? I asked you. Can you not focus on a simple question. I've already said this is a discussion site. You can't form your own opinion???
My guess? They would like to emphasize the point that the judicial community overwhelmingly reads WKA to say what they think it says.
That's not a very secure viewpoint. It takes 12 citations from other cases, plus 100 overall so-called "birther" cases to show that a legal precedent from a Supreme Court case is "overwhelming"???
You may feel that facts are decided by consensus, but I will point out that Lister was correct when the entire medical community was wrong. Same thing with Einstein.
Numbers of people in agreement with each other are meaningless in regards to what is the truth. Rather than say "we outnumber you, ergo we are correct" ( a variation of "might makes right.) why don't you explain why their argument is valid?