[Texas Fossil]

You can try to parse Dr. Fukino’s words till the cows come home but judges and justices all across America, and at the Supreme Court of the United States have understood Dr. Fukino’s words much better than you.

That’s why the scorecard in Obama eligibility lawsuits is Obama: 89/Birthers: 0.

Nope. You are wrong. That is not why the courts have done what they have. Troll.

[jamese777]

Nope. You are wrong. That is not why the courts have done what they have. Troll.

---

Pray, tell us, what is the reason then? GNOME.

And while you’re telling us, here’s what one federal judge had to say. A judge who was a former Republican state Senator from Georgia and who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush: “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.”—US. District Court Judge Clay R. Land, Rhodes v MacDonald, September 16, 2009.