Replies

"A constitutional scholar I trust more than your speculation is Dr. Alan Keyes, who is a party to a trial that starts tomorrow questioning Obama's NBC status, among other things. "

Well, while I'm not a former Ambassador, I am a practicing attorney - unlike Keyes. I also understand the difference between a trial court and an appellate court. The case that you allude to his going to be heard in front of three judge panel in the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - quite clearly not a trial court, so there will be no trial.

The district court already heard plaintiff's case and dismissed it - probably for lack of standing as a nonjusticiable political question. The chance of the plaintiff(s) prevailing on appeal with the case remanded for trial in a lower court is precisely 0.00% - you know, like ALL the other birther cases that have been dismissed for those very same reasons.

I believe this is at least the second such case Keyes has been party to. I'm sure this won't end any differently than those prior cases.

The district court already heard plaintiff's case and dismissed it - probably for lack of standing as a nonjusticiable political question.

Yes, my understanding is the Obama defense got the case thrown out by getting the court to agree that if Obama is truly illegitimate, he's screwing over every last American, not just those that raised the question to the court, so they weren't sufficiently representing all of our claims. So that defense may have technically won, which is all you seem concerned about, but it hardly addressed the legitimate claims about questionable NBC status, multiple SSN's on record, etc.

I believe this is at least the second such case Keyes has been party to.

So why care then, right? They can possibly technically win the case by claiming that no one in America has the right to even question this, unless every last one of us are all somehow a party to the suit, and you're all good with it. Doesn't sound like you care if he was born in Kenya or not, or if any future President's are, either. Not projecting, just observing.

OldDeckHand said:

I believe this is at least the second such case Keyes has been party to. I'm sure this won't end any differently than those prior cases.

You are correct in this case. Keyes' attorneys did not set the stage properly. Keyes would have to prove he won the election, not Obama, in 2008 to have standing based on Quo Warranto.

What Keyes should have done was sue for civil damages. Punitive damages, albeit quite rare in a civil suit, may also have been awarded. Assuming Obama was out of the running and Keyes finished well enough to receive campaign contributions from the state of California, then he and his team would have standing. Keyes would have had to prove he would have garnered enough votes to obtain those funds in the absence of votes to the Democrats.