I have never gotten an answer to the questions I have asked, nor has anybody. What we got was a “Go away. You don’t count.” That’s not an answer; that’s an EVASION, just as Justice Thomas said.
If they had done that to the Gore supporters what would America look like today? I asked that question of somebody else: if the courts had refused to take up Bush v Gore on the merits how would that election have ended?
When the legitimate means to decide issues FAILS, it is an invitation to what happened in Kenya: whoever torches the most churches wins.
Keep in mind that the guy whose campaign planned ahead-of-time to torch churches in order to force a spot for himself in the Kenyan government... received a million campaign dollars from Obama.
I am not joking or exaggerating in any way when I say that for me this issue is about the rule of law. If over half the country is saying WTF regarding the law-breaking that’s gone on concerning Obama’s eligibility, and if that and the illegality of actions by Congress can all be “evaded” by the legitimate means for us to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that means we no longer have the rule of law. Period. The only law we have is the law of the jungle, and you can look at Obama’s hero, Odinga, to see exactly what that means. Or you can look at the druglords that our own DOJ is making sure are able to come into the US to do their beheadings.
What is going on here is serious, serious doo-doo. Surely you have to see that.
Had the courts refused to take up Bush vs. Gore, the Republican controlled Florida legislature was prepared to step in and and appoint the electors directly, since the US Constitution gives the power of selecting the electors to the state legislatures, not the voters.
This may have led to two competing sets of electors and to a controversy in the Congress when it came time to count them. Then it would have been up to Congress to decide which set to accept, if either. Congress would decide the election.
All of this is provided for in the Constitution, just as the same document provides the procedure for qualifying the President.
The courts are not the final arbiters of every issue. Had the Congress ended up deciding the election, no court could have any say in the matter. It is totally outside of their power.
The same applies to the matter of Obama's qualification. That role is reserved for the electors and the Congress. Even if there were a factual basis for believing Obama isn't eligible (there isn't), Congress has already made its decision. No court can overturn it. Multiple judges have already explained this in their rulings but birthers don't want to hear it. They want to ignore the Constitution because it isn't providing the answer they want now. That's why their mantra of claiming to be Constitutional defenders is sheer hypocrisy.