Posted on 10/16/2009 6:02:03 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
The court has released the official transcript of the October 5, 2009 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss the eligibility lawsuit brought by Orly Taitz against Obama. (Keyes/Barnett v. Obama)
Full transcript at the link.
Ping.
Read it and laugh!
Ping
Orly mentions Thurgood Marshall. Judge Carter says, “he’s dead.”
Bwahahahahahaha!
Gee, I thought the question we wanted answered simply is Obama eligible to hold office of the POTUS.
I like the judge. People sure do gum the works up in the court when they start dancing around the court room instead of practicing law.
Doesn’t look very good for the petitioners in my opinion.
Just went through the whole thing. We just got to get by this ‘Standing’ concern.
You know these US Attorneys are full of cow manure...the suits were filed BEFORE Dumbama because president and the plaintiffs were told they had NO STANDING...
They’re full of KRAP!
She seems like a seasoned pro compared to the retards from DOJ
“If the President were forced to go through pretrial and discovery and trial, imagine what would happen to his ability to function as the chief executive officer of the United States of America.
Moreover, what would happen if, for example, some judge in one district were to decide that the President is not qualified or did not meet the qualifications to be President, and another judge faced with the same issue in another district were to decide, yes, he is qualified.
What would we do then? We would have appeals.
In the meantime, the President’s ability, for example, to conduct foreign policy would be severely damaged.
I mean, imagine the prospect of going into negotiations, for example, over nuclear nonproliferation or some other extremely delicate matter with our foreign adversaries and allies looking at the President saying, “Wait a minute, I just heard that a district judge in your decided that you’re not fit to be President. Why should I engage you in negotiations?” Imagine what it would do the ability of the President — and this is any President. We’re not just talking about the current incumbent President. This is an attack on the Presidency itself.
Imagine the damage that would accrue if matters such as these could be litigated in courts. The damage that could accrue to the President’s ability to pass his domestic agenda. The President of the United States is the only officer of the United States who is elected through the vote of all of the people of the United States. He’s not — it’s not like a Congressman or a Senator. He doesn’t have just one constituency. His constituency is the people of the United States.
I submit that the constitutional — the textual commitment in the Constitution to the questions which the plaintiffs in this case seek to raise renders it mandatory, in my view, that these matters be considered nonjusticiable. That the remedies, if any, which these plaintiffs have and other plaintiffs who wish to challenge the fitness and qualifications of a President to serve in office — those are committed to the legislative branch, to the Congress, and not to the courts, and for very good reasons.”
~ Roger West, Assistant United States Attorney
I just don’t see how that can be done. The courts don’t have jurisdiction to hear these cases.
Are we ever gonna see a decision from this guy?
Thanks! Took forever to read in between Monk and Psyche.
parsy, who thinks justiciability will be main reason he grants motion to dismiss
Ok, I’ve can’t click on the link yet...but did the transcript mention why orly brought up marshall, why did carter say he’s dead and what’s so funny?
Worried about chaos if proven inelligible..Sounded like joyb. As if order is more important than truth.
Ms. Taitz: When we’re talking about constitutional rights of citizens, those rights have to be viewed in completely different light than any other rights. I would give you an example of Brown v. Board of Education. If Thurgood Marshall were to stand here in front of you today and he would state my client —
Judge Carter: He’s dead, Counsel.
Thanks... Not quite sure where she was going with that...using a high profile case to explain her position of civil rights. That’s interesting, but what a snart-alec interruption by clark. Sheesh...
Another thing...I would like to know about her friends and acquaintances. Don’t you think it’s odd that the liberal media hasn’t interviewed them? Or would that draw too much attention? I’m surprised the supermarket tabloids haven’t drug up dirt on her.
It seems he's either writing a "War and Peace" of a ruling or he's shelved it for a while. It's not like Orly can do much of anything without discovery and the DOJ lawyers don't have to do anything at all. Kreep and Keyes don't seem to optimistic. They booked a cruise
These sound like the arguments in the Jones case, why a sitting president couldn’t be sued civilly. And we all know how that worked out.
This particular case is a lot more easily resolved with the simple release of birth, any adoption, passport and student financial aid papers to establish the Constitutional ‘natural born citizen’ requirement, which is all that is being asked.
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.