Replies

But Leo is not a real Constitutional scholar. He is a professional poker player with no absolutely no legal experience.

Where did gain his knowledge? From actual litigation? No. From serving as a judge? No. From teaching law? No. From Google? Yes.

He is just another Google lawyer. And yet he knows more then the top conservative legal minds in America. Wow.

So how do you explain the Supreme Court rejecting all the birther suits? Surely they read the arguments and evidence in the briefs. Why didn’t the light come on and they say “boy were we wrong.”?

But Leo is not a real Constitutional scholar. He is a professional poker player with no absolutely no legal experience.

So? You do know what "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam" means, don't you? On the other hand, probably not. It means that something is not true just because someone in authority says it is true.

A person with no credentials whatsoever can be correct. Facts and Logic do not bow to credentials, but are freely employable by everyone. God is no respecter of Persons, and I don't see why any American should be. We gave up practicing lèse majesté when we overthrew English Law.

Where did gain his knowledge? From actual litigation?

What knowledge can be gained from Litigation, other than court procedure? (Which in my mind has absolutely nothing to do with the correct meaning of "natural citizen." )

No. From serving as a judge?

Again, how does that increase one's knowledge of what was meant in 1787? Does knowledge fly in through the courtroom window carried in by knowledge fairys or something?

No. From teaching law? No.

Teaching law would only inform someone who focused on this particular aspect of it. As it is a legal cul-de-sac, not subject to very much scrutiny at all, it is highly unlikely that teaching general law would result in any appreciable knowledge regarding the correct meaning of the 1787 term "natural born citizen." Most law professors probably default to the simpleminded "it's based on English Common law" in complete and utter oblivion to the fact that the War of 1812 absolutely refutes this theory, as does the Expatriation act of 1868. Here is another document you won't understand.

From Google? Yes.

Nope, Google (liberal owned and operated) scrubs links on this issue. Yahoo is far more informative.

No, everything you mentioned above is irrelevant. The ONLY way to gain understanding on this issue is to research it, starting with founding era documents, and working outward from there.

Several possible reasons. Here is the first, and most obvious.

It is already established that the Court will maintain an unconstitutional ruling if to overturn it will disrupt things beyond their tolerance.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, writing for the majority in the case of PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY, "Stare Decisis." (Which means Shut the F*** up! We have made our decision!)

Given that it is axiomatic that "Constitutionality" is not the Supreme goal of the Supreme Court, it requires no imagination to wonder why the Judges might run screaming in terror from the very thought of turning out the first "Black" Precedent.

If they thought that ignoring the case would result in massive quantities of people burning down cities and killing many thousands, they would very likely have taken the issue up.

But you go on thinking that this is all about law and constitutionality.