[Seizethecarp]

I find it interesting that a top WSJ legal blogger (WSJ is a Murdock pub) has elevated for discussion in this highly visible blog several key findings by Judge Carter.

Judge Carter's statement that quo warranto could be brought against Obama in the DC Circuit is not mentioned.

The many comments to this piece are interesting, too.

[Loud Mime]

I am not a birther, but I find this angle interesting.

Liberals continually file lawsuits -— give them a taste of their own medicine.

[Seizethecarp]

Here is an interesting summation of the case from “Jack” in the comments, and a comment that appears to be from Orly herself:

4:30 pm October 30, 2009
Jack wrote:
.JUDGE CARTER IN A NUTSHELL: Expanded Orly Taitz default judgment case against CANDIDATE Obama for fraud into a Presidential Removal case against PRESIDENT Obama (promising a trial), but then ruled the Court lacks said Presidential Removal authority, not only dismissing the Judge-expanded Presidential Removal case (reneging on the trial), but throwing out Orly’s Candidate fraud case as well — all this on a red herring that Orly’s case was filed 1/20/09 after Obama was sworn in on 1/20/09 despite Obama was sworn in on 1/21/09 and despite the Orly-alleged fraud was committed by Candidate Obama prior to becoming President and for which there is no Presidential immunity in any case. Thus Judge Carter set up and knocked down his own straw man, and misstated fact and law to bury Orly’s actual case. Pretty nifty!!!
..
5:34 pm October 30, 2009
Dr Orly Taitz ESq wrote:
.Dear Mr. Jones
I am aware that you are not a fan of mine, but there are a number of Constitutional issues that I raised in this action, that were omitted in the opinion or misinterpreted. I hope you will show journalistic integrity more so then Bill O’Reilly and Rachel Maddow and would give me an opportunity to present those issues to the readers of WSJ. You can reach me at 949-683-5411
Sincerely
Orly Taitz
.

[True Republican Patriot]

The Law Suit needs to be Refocused! The Court should be requested to Find if in Fact OBOZO HUSSEIN BIN LADIN legitimately satisfies the Constitution’s Requirement that The Candidate and hence The PRESIDENT is a “NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN?” If the Said Individual is NOT Eligible, then So Be IT! and Let the Powers to Be Remedy The Situation... That would appear to be CONGRESS which is entrusted with the Powers to IMPEACH and Remove a Sitting PRESIDENT, Legitimate, Alleged or Otherwise!

[Canedawg]

rest assured, we’ll be all over it if and when one gains significant traction.

And why is that?

Because you want to know as much as anyone else what his authentic BC says?

Because you anticpate the constitutional crisis that may occur if it is found that he is not qualified to hold office?

Because you are interested in seeing what discovery is produced and exposed for public consumption?

Because you want to see if the threats of violence are real if the cowards ever back off from their stonewalling and allow the authentic BC to be examined in the public light?

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Lucy, a Sunday afternoon ping.

This article is fascinating as it looks at it from another angle...and...(surprisingly) on the Wall Street Journal blog.

[Electric Graffiti]

I’m reading the comments from the article you posted and it is no longer a question whether Obama has people on the payroll to troll the eligibility issue all over the web. They are scared sh!tless.

[Uncle Sham]

Lawsuits Are Not The Answer, This New State Law IS

[Freddd]

By the time even a little truth comes out, it’s gonna make Clinton’s impeachment look like small potatoes.

[OafOfOffice]

I was working with a WSJ reporter on healthcare issues when Murdoch bought the paper. The fear was Murdoch wanted more tabloid type reporting. The reporters wanted more liberal reporting.

At the time in’07 WSJ appeared more liberal. Now I see all voices appearing. Especially in the opinion section.

[Seizethecarp]

Here's another interesting comment on the WSJ blog by “Jack”:

12:35 am October 31, 2009
Jack wrote:
.CARTER DECISION FATAL FLAW: When all is said and done, ONE CLAIM MOST DEFINITELY SURVIVES, and that is Keyes’ claim for fraud committed by Candidate Obama before becoming President, which Judge Carter pretends away on the sole basis of Orly having filed same on 1/20/09 at an hour after Obama took the Oath. That’s a “red herring” because Obama took the valid Oath on 1/21/09, no Presidential immunity exists for tort fraud by Candidate Obama before becoming President, and “before-or-after” Oath filing by Orly is irrelevant for such case which does NOT seek Presdential removal, albeit Judge Carter pretends that IS the sole relief sought by Keyes.

[Freedom2specul8]

Thank you, this article is really good so far. (Now to click on the link to read the rest)

[STE=Q]

"But an opinion issued on Thursday dismissing one of these suits (this one, like others, brought by Orange County lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz) caught our attention."

Well, the truth that Obama is NOT a NBC is finaly reaching critical mass.

The dynamics are changing!

The question people will now be asking is what to do about it?

I agree with Judge Carter on the importance of separation of powers in our Constitution... that the proper "remedy" -- in this case -- rests with congress to administer.

STE=Q

[CzarChasm]

the full text (PDF warning!) is very interesting. Carter's ruling reduces to: "Impeach him if you can, the courts can't help you."

[American Constitutionalist]

To Judge Carter, if your listening, we know what the separation of powers is.
We are not asking you to remove Obama from office, we are asking you to open the door for discovery so that if can once and for all be settled whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States.
If he is NOT qualified to be president, then, the court should ask Congress with the evidence you provide to remove him from office.