Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
From Judge Carter's opinion:
P 16-17
"Plaintiffs argue that the injury they suffered was the deprivation of the right to run for office on a fair playing field against only candidates who meet the constitutional requirements to serve as President. Under this theory, the injury is not that of being deprived the chance to win, but being deprived the chance to compete only against “legitimate” candidates. If the Court accepts this concept of injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that they were all injured by having to compete against him in the national election.
Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the Court will turn to whether the political candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis and whether the political candidates can further clear the political question and separation of powers hurdles of justiciability."
[...]
"Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is having to respect the authority of a president who does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury would only be redressed by the removal of President Obama from office."
[...]
"In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.
P 18
"Because Plaintiffs did not file this action until the day President Obama took office and was sworn in, any action that this Court takes in this matter is not merely against Senator Obama as a political candidate but against President Obama, this country’s sitting president. In this case, the redressability prong of standing is intimately intertwined with and influenced by another justiciability concept–political question and the separation of powers. Any action taken by the Court would necessarily infringe upon, at the very least, the Executive branch because it would involve a declaration regarding the qualifications of the President. Because the redressability analysis must consider what actions the Court may take against a sitting President, separation of powers concerns regarding the appropriate role of the judiciary sit at the forefront of the redressability analysis."
P 20
"Removing the President would not only affect the Executive branch, it may also infringe upon the power of the Legislative branch granted by the Constitution in matters of Presidential impeachment and succession. Defendants argue that the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to remove a president through Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which address impeachment, and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the removal of the president should he or she be unfit to serve.
The non-justiciability of an action on political question grounds is “primarily a function of the separation of powers” and pertains to “the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210, 82 S. Ct. 691 (1962)."
Pp 24-25
"There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts."
Whether you stay or leave makes no difference to me.
I just find it amusing when people complain, say they’re going to leave, then they don’t go anywhere but continue to complain that they’re going to have to leave.
If you do leave, don’t forget to write an opus!
You can’t leave without an opus.
It’s almost a rule.
Thank you.
Though you still seem incapable of understanding that someone can disagree with you without being a shill or lackey of your opposition. That much seems beyond hope.
But you keep tryin’, right liberal?
Isn’t it interesting how the obots keep focusing upon the flawed/false assertion that going to trial would be solely to remove the sitting Pres__ent from office? It is telling that they want to draw attention to a deceit as their reason for defending the Judge Carter ruling. Progressives love to cite lies as logos supporting their agenda.
I do try.
And you certainly seem to persist in presuming that those who disagree with you on certain topics or facts are liberals.
You also can’t serve in the Senate unless you are a citizen. Keyes was a last minute substitute for Republican opposition in the Senate race after Emmanual released the sealed terms of the previous opponent’s divorce proceedings, which caused him to withdraw. The Chicago Way.
Rather than learning, she is claiming that Judge Carter betrayed her.
Maybe that's because Orly persists in claiming that it is so. She also claims that if Obama were removed from office, Biden would be president for three months only and then there would be a special election - 'cause its done all the time in other countries you know.
This former soviet citizen, current Israeli citizen attempts to rewrite our Constitution, misuse our courts and actually has a following - it baffles me.
"Rather than learning, she is claiming that Judge Carter betrayed her."
In her defense, she immigrated from a country where extreme paranoia was probably an important survival technique. However, as a lawyer in our system, that trait can create problems when coupled with a large ego and a lack of formal legal training and experience. Her behaviour and arguments are more like what you would find coming from an average pro se litigant.
Most people that are good test takers could probably gather enough info to cram for and pass the bar in their state without any formal legal training, but that does not mean that they would be a good lawyer or successful in court proceedings.
First off, I would point you to RebelTex’s post at #557 so you can see how Judge Carter was actually very patient and helpful in outlining how a case could move forward in a way that our legal system (still the best in the world, in case you forgot) will accept. He’s actually doing her a big favor, and she will be too angry to notice, I’ll bet.
Secondly, one of my biggest problems with the birthers is that they do not see how any success that Taitz has in gaining discovery with her current arguments and tactics actually WEAKENS the judicial branch in the future. A group of radical lawyers who don’t share your political views could then file any number of specious, frivolous lawsuits against a Republican President and cause judicial gridlock. If you allow precedent for one, then you allow it for ALL.
She needs to fufill the demands of the forum, not have the forum bend to her demands.
Third, make up your mind and call Obama a fascist or a communist. They are not the same things, and to say so makes you look unintelligent.
So true, that’s an unspoken rule of the internet. How can we miss you if you won’ t go away?
Shove your sarcasm little man.
How about your Pres_ _ent is using fascist tactics to install his marxist agenda, Vicky? And your pitiful effort to insult my intelligence needs work, skippy.
Perhaps much of Orly’s feckless courtroom character is due to her lack of courtroom experience. Sad really ...
By levying a fine against her for saying her lawsuit was frivilous. This is assinine. There are lawsuits brought before the court that are truly frivilous and all we hear is how humorous they are. Never are fines levied for them. But this case has merit and to call it frivilous is, as I said, assinine.
: )
You have no idea how funny that is.
Anyways. Disagreement without needing to be vindictive or puff your ego up through insults..
Look into it.
Seriously.
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.