It should be noted that the track record of the many lawyers who have attempted to pursue this issue in court is not exactly stellar.
***************
It should be noted that the record of the courts who have heard this issue in various forms has been less than stellar as well. So much for the intellectual curiosity of jurists. The likelihood that every single judge would rule the same way is a suspicious set of circumstances. But then again, crooked judges are an epidemic in our flawed legal system, and the chicago thugs are a bunch of wiseguys.
The MSM has been reporting this issue dishonestly as well.
The shell game of creating the illusion of NBC without ever producing the authentic BC is dishonest.
There is a moral bankruptcy that has accompanied the rise of this regime to power, to rule over the citizens of America, many of whom may have been bamboozled by the pervasive deception.
The lawyers who have brought these cases have managed to make out a prima facie case- if the the courts were interested in hearing the issue.
Really? Perhaps you can recite for us the plaintiff's cases that have prevailed on appeal? To my knowledge, not a single instance of reversible error committed by any of these judges. How about that?
"So much for the intellectual curiosity of jurists."
Interesting, you want district court judges to ignore precedent and statutory law as well as established principles of American jurisprudence to indulge their sense of "curiosity"? You'd make an EXCELLENT liberal judge.
"The likelihood that every single judge would rule the same way is a suspicious set of circumstances."
Tortured logic, indeed. "Every single judge" ruled the same way because every single judge followed the law. No conspiracy there.
"The lawyers who have brought these cases have managed to make out a prima facie case- if the the courts were interested in hearing the issue."
Only in the minds of birthers, and NOT in the minds of the dozens of judges who have heard these cases, nor the judges on appeal. Again, how about that?
Hey, don't take my word for it, this is how Judge Land (a Bush appointee to the bench, and a man with unimpeachable conservative bona fides) characterized your "prima facie case"...
"A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest."
Emphasis added.