Remember your flow chart for Birther responses to caselaw that rebuts Birther claims.
Caselaw: From a state court.
Birther Response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal court.
Caselaw: From a federal district court.
Birther response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal appellate court.
Caselaw: From a federal appellate court.
Birther reponse: Unreliable because the judges who penned the opinion was not a Republican appointee.
Caselaw: From a Republican appointee on a federal appellate court.
Birther response: Unreliable because it’s not from the Supreme Court.
It helps to remind you how few Birthers have any sort of real legal education. No serious lawyer would ever argue to a court that precedent is unreliable based on the partisan affiliation of the President who appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.
Caselaw: From a state court.
Birther Response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal court.
Caselaw: From a federal district court.
Birther response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal appellate court.
Caselaw: From a federal appellate court.
Birther reponse: Unreliable because the judges who penned the opinion was not a Republican appointee.
Caselaw: From a Republican appointee on a federal appellate court.
Birther response: Unreliable because it’s not from the Supreme Court.
This, boys and girls, is what is known as the "Straw Man" fallacy. They accuse someone (The bugaboo birther strawman) of saying or believing something that they have not actually said, then proceed to beat the stuffing out of the fake "straw man." That is why it is called the "straw man" argument. It doesn't resemble the real thing, and it doesn't fight back. :)
My position has always been that the Founding Document is the Highest legal authority, not the courts which it created. The courts can, and far too often Do, get it wrong. (Kelo)
It helps to remind you how few Birthers have any sort of real legal education. No serious lawyer would ever argue to a court that precedent is unreliable based on the partisan affiliation of the President who appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.
But it would be the truth, non the less. One only need look at how many 5/4 decisions are all the result of a partisan split. In any case, this comment reminds me of the Claims by Democrats regarding how valuable it is to elect people with experience in Government. It has been repeatedly pointed out that if "experience" governs thus, Amateurs could do no worse!
Another pot shot at the legal system. If the laws are made by Amateurs (Non lawyer legislators) then why should "professionals" be required to "interpret" what the Amateurs wrote? Hmmm?
No serious lawyer would ever argue to a court that precedent is unreliable based on the partisan affiliation of the President who appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.
Very true. But even the opinion is from the Supreme Court and the majority were appointed by Republicans, they still claim the "offending" judges were lib appointed. For Rogers vs. Bellei, see a recent thread, post #166.
Unfortunately, nothing in this chart applies to the OP. There's no argument the circuit court rulings are unacceptable or unreliable. The argument is that these rulings, while regurgitating a claim of natural-born citizenship for a couple of children, did NOT show any respect to the alleged citizenship. The childrens were expected to go back home with their foreign-national parents. Is this what Obots and apologists think natural born citizenship is about??