Posted on 03/10/2009 3:39:09 AM PDT by AJMCQ
The wonderful circular reasoning: on the one hand Schumer says the courts decided, and then Judge Robertson says Hollister wants it decided by the courts .. but he’s not going to let that happen since it’s already been decided by a popular vote, twittere and text messages, etc.
Not one court has gotten to the merits of the case, or even allowed discovery.
Some that I've gotten burned on: that there was a ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981, and that Maya Soetero has a Hawaiian COLB.
The first has been very well debunked - US citizens who posted that they traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on US passports, newspaper articles about travel to Pakistan dated June 1981, and a state department travel advisory about getting visas to enter Pakistan.
The second was put forward by Techdude who has been discredited, and no one has been able to come up with any evidence. See this post. It does us no good to give easy targets by putting forward something that can be so easily disproved, like the alleged travel ban.
This was at a time when Pakistan did not allow Americans into Pakistan.
Sorry, this has been pretty extensively debunked, unless you have proof no one else has seen. Better to stick to the dual citizenship aspect.
No, what Judge Robertson said was, "The real plaintff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory estoppel. That case was subject to the scholarly opinion of a judge who took Mr. Berg's claims seriously -- and dismissed them. Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg's fallback brainstorm..."
You are displaying quite a bit of ignorance beginning with the fact that lack of standing has no connection to the merits of the case; it is a holding that the particular plaintiff can’t get to the merits and, therefore, the merits will not be addressed. But, please, keep on exposing your ignorance; it makes your motivation so clear.
Well fogive my ignorance but I'll ask again. If you have no legal right to sue then how can your case have any merit?
In two ways: 1) If you win an appeal on standing you can then pursue the merits. 2) Another plaintiff who does have standing may reach the merits and win the case.
A rather large 'if' in this case. Or so it appears.
2) Another plaintiff who does have standing may reach the merits and win the case.
How's that going for you?
I’m not a plaintiff but merely an observer. Appeals are won regularly. Some judges are repealed frequently and others not so frequently. It depends upon the particular courts and the particular judges. Often there is a political element, either within the politics of the particular court or, as here, on a broader scale. Once again, you seem to speak from ignorance and appear to have a motivation to do so connected with the politics of the situation.
I'm just an observer, too. But according to attorney friends of mine appeals courts very rarely agree to hear cases that have been dismissed by the lower court.
Once again, you seem to speak from ignorance and appear to have a motivation to do so connected with the politics of the situation.
You keep saying that, yet very little of what you state makes much sense. I guess I'll just have to learn to live with your disapproval.
I don’t think you are doing anything but displaying your ignorance because you seem to be too ignorant and unwilling to learn because of your preconceived bias.
You really display it in your most recent post. There are appeals as a matter of right and petitions for appeal, such as a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. (I have won one of the latter, by the way, although only a very small percentage of such petitions are granted.) The two are entirely different but you clearly want to confuse one with other because of your bias. Please keep displaying your willful ignorance; it makes your role and mission so clear. You are educating others on this forum about the true nature of what they refer to as a “troll.”
I'm not sure I'm going to learn a whole lot from you that I don't already know.
You are educating others on this forum about the true nature of what they refer to as a “troll.”
And you are displaying all the traits of what they refer to as a "birther". Congratulations on that.
But since you seem so concerned with my education, can you please answer my earlier question and explain how a case can have merit if the plaintiff lacks the standing to sue in the first place? Use any of the birther cases you wish as an example - Berg v. Obama, Hollister v. Soetoro, take your pick.
You obviously did not know the difference between an appeal as a matter of right and an appeal that must be petitioned for such as a petition for cert to the Supreme Court, and are determined not to know.
You are quite arrogant in insisting that you know what you obviously do not know and, because of your arrogance, are determined not to know. Calling people a name such as “birther” does not elucidate the law and how it or is not being applied but it does not advance the analysis. As I understand the term “troll” it describes someone such as yourself who is determined to not know the truth of the matter and displays that determination as you are doing.
Hussein Obama has the greatest group of thugs in his entourage than any other politician in history. They have developed intimidation into an art. Since they have seized control of the government thru the dupes who voted for them, we are in for it during the next four years and maybe longer.
Yep. His daddy was NOT an American. The amendment says born to American parents.
Ditto’s.
With the ‘both’ parents must be american requirement, how could he possibly potus. his daddy was Not an american.
All birth certificates in Hawaii are sealed. Privacy.
Of course his records at Occidental, Columbia and Havard are also sealed.
And “Magna” is a pretty rotten result for a Harvard law review editor who NEVER WROTE AN ARTICLE.
Well, democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed sheep that contests the decision.
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.