That’s a trainwreck of a decision. The judge cites Minor to say that the Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens and then he goes straight to the 14th amendment of the Constitution to define eligibility. IOW, it’s a direct contradiction of unanimous Supreme Court precedent. I don’t know what argument Voeltz made, but it’s easy to show this judge contradicted his own rationale.
The law is not the main criterion because the majority of the Judges in the US do not think the constitution *should* be applied, they prefer the more comfortable routine of citing bogus precedent built on multiple levels of miss-reading the law.
This applies x10 if the progressive judge thinks the decision is going to affect the political balance of power.
Is the US a Democracy, or a Constitutional Republic? the progressives infiltrate the Judiciary precisely to destroy the constitution.
There is also another CP USA trick of infiltrating their spawn into Law clerks offices and blackmailing Justices.
The Alabama Supreme court is about the last court in the USA that is dominated by constitionional conservative Justices.
Even they may decide there is nothing they can do and punt.
I’m not sure which of the three Voeltz v. Obama eligibility lawsuits you are referring to as a “train wreck” but one judge’s ruling was appealed to the Florida Court of Appeals for the First District and upheld; another appeal is still pending at the Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court denied the third appeal.
That’s what an appeal to a higher court is for, when a plaintiff or a defendant feels that a judge’s ruling is a “train wreck.” But unless and until it is overturned, the “train wreck” of a ruling stands.