Posted on 03/23/2010 10:49:42 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges
These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint. Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
That’s funny! LOL
Cases should be judged on merit, not politics.
If you haven’t read this, it is a window on our possible future:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/judge-gonzalez-now-guilty-of-intentional-fraud-in-chrysler-case/
* * * * * *
Just four days prior to Judge Gonzales committing the judicial fraud described above, he was promoted by Obama to Chief Magistrate of the Bankruptcy Court. What a nice quid pro quo for the Judge!
“Conservative justices were not likely to rule in Al Gore’s favor in Bush v Gore.”
Why did you bring up this particular case from 2000?
SCOTUS did not favor Bush: they sent the case back to Florida’s Supreme Court warning them not to change the rules in the middle of an election. In no way did SCOTUS determine who won the election.
You are seriously twisting what they've said. In fact, they've said everything they could say to confirm it.
Again, why are we celebrating somebody who successfully gamed the system?? Fooling people isn’t a trait to be admired.
I wonder if you realize just how delusional you are on this issue?
the first person fined for not having govt insurance will have standing... and will be able to challenge the laws validity due to the _resident not being eligible to assume office in the first place.
I see this as one reason they are putting off implementing the healthcare plan until 0bama is out of office
Feel free finding any words from any Hawaiian official resembling, "Obama's alleged COLB is authentic." Good luck.
Instead of pointless insults, prove me wrong.
Try turning that “hate” into prayer and political activism. “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
Instead of pointless insults, prove me wrong.
You and folks like you are going to have to prove that Obama is ineligible and then convince the US Supreme Court and/or a majority of the members of Congress.
My opinion is that if that was going to happen, it would have happened before the 2008 national elections. It didn’t happen.
You’ll get another chance on the first Tuesday in November of 2012.
Yet you do so anyway, over and over, except without proving anything.
I prayed and prayed and prayed Obama would not be elected. I guess sometimes God wants us to answer our own prayers.
Have you considered that it is God’s will that “The One” was elected and God knows why? I believe that the entire universe and everything in it is unfolding according to God’s plan. If we heed the warning that the democrat power grab has sounded and we work tirelessly to hold them responsible and support grass roots candidates perhaps we can get make things right. Remember, all politics is local and that is where I recommend starting to take the country back. If your town dog catcher is a commie kook, run for dog catcher. Get on the school board etc...The left has mastered this stealth means of controlling things, making the situation we are in OUR FAULT. Pray for motivation to get involved.
Well said!
Yet you do so anyway, over and over, except without proving anything.
“Conservative justices were not likely to rule in Al Gore’s favor in Bush v Gore.”
Why did you bring up this particular case from 2000?
SCOTUS did not favor Bush: they sent the case back to Florida’s Supreme Court warning them not to change the rules in the middle of an election. In no way did SCOTUS determine who won the election.
Let’s all just wait and see what the outcome will be for the attempt at a Writ of Quo Warranto in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
As I already said, I’m not very hopeful. The US Supreme Court has rejected seven lawsuits thus far challenging Obama’s eligibility and it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case before the full court (The Rule of Four). That means they haven’t even been able to get four of the five conservative justices to agree to take on this issue.
I’m guessing that Justice Roberts has recused himself since he swore Obama in and Justice Kennedy is a lukewarm conservative, so that leaves only Scalia, Alito and Thomas and maybe Justice Thomas won’t touch the first black president? Who knows?
You said you were wasting energy, which is not the same as what I do at all. I make a point and prove it. You make a claim, and then make pointless insults, like calling another personal delusional and bemoan about wasting energy. What you do is not debate.
You said you were wasting energy, which is not the same as what I do at all. I make a point and prove it. You make a claim, and then make pointless insults, like calling another personal delusional and bemoan about wasting energy. What you do is not debate.
Speaking as a lawyer, I strongly doubt that a court will consider the President's eligibility when ruling on a challenge to the health bill (or any other law Obama signs), because of both the "enrolled bill doctrine" and the "de facto officer doctrine."
There is one (and I believe only one) way to get a court to rule on Obama's eligibility, and that is a suit by an opposing candidate who is on the ballot in any state when Obama runs for re-election-- either a primary opponent, if any Democrat challenges Obama's renomination, or any candidate on the ballot in the general election.
Every state (or at least all whose laws I am familiar with) has a procedure in its election laws to challenge the eligibility of a candidate, but the class of people who can sue is very narrow (only opposing candidates who have qualified for the ballot) and the time frame for suing is very short (typically, between the time a candidate officially files a statement of intent to run for office and the time the ballots are printed). Neither Hillary (nor any other Democrat on the primary ballots) nor McCain (in the general election) invoked these laws last time.
the first eligibility case was brought in aug 2008 by hilarys guy, berg ... and was ruled ‘no standing’
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.