Your original subject is what it would take to win before SCOTUS, presented by insulting Orly Taitz.
If you just want to insult Orly Taitz because it makes you feel better, go ahead.
However, her legal arguments should be justly considered, regardless of her demeanor, absent a ruling of “contempt” of court.
Many persistent, professional, polite lawyers have addressed the issue of Obama’s eligibility before many different courts, which have all denied standing and refused discovery — something they do not do to the same standard in a multiplicity of other cases, some of which I have referred to.
So I am not changing the subject you brought up, just pointing out that it doesn’t make any difference HOW the truth and facts are presented, again, absent a correct ruling of contempt. It is the courts’ job to address issues of law, which they stedfastly refuse to do.
So Orly Taitz is dedicated enough to pursue this issue, despite all the insults you and others can hurl at her for the way she is doing so. The court may wish to continue refusing to address what every American has a constitutional right, and standing, to know — that their president is legitimate.
You prove my point.
Her legal arguments have been considered.
"Many persistent, professional, polite lawyers have addressed the issue of Obama’s eligibility before many different courts, which have all denied standing and refused discovery — something they do not do to the same standard in a multiplicity of other cases, some of which I have referred to."
You don't understand how the court system works. The court is not your detective agency. You don't file a lawsuit because you suspect something and want discovery. And you have to bring to court an issue about which the court can do something. It doesn't hand out advisory opinions. You don't just go to court because you have a question about an issue of law and you want an answer.