The Ankeny ruling was denied a hearing at the Indiana Supreme Court and not further appealed to the federal appeals courts. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruling seems to make sense to other judges, many of whom have cited it in subsequent rulings. The arguments for the defense in Ankeny were posited by Gregory Zoeller, the conservative Republican Attorney General of Indiana who represented Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana who is the former George W. Bush administration Budget Director.
No highly respected conservative constitutional attorney has taken an Obama eligibility lawsuit as a case. I’m talking about the constitutionalist legal foundations such as the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Landmark Legal Foundation or The Center For Individual Rights. Additionally none of the former Solicitors General in the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush or G.W. Bush administrations has gone near an eligibility lawsuit or appeal.
The quality of the lawyering is a primary reason why many eligibility-related civil actions have been dismissed on dispositive motions. Orly Taitz, in particular, has had lawsuits dismissed for failure to effect proper service of subpoenas upon the people she was suing. A competent attorney simply hires process servers whose job it is to effect proper service.
The first eligibility-related lawsuit (filed in March, 2008) to be dismissed for lack of standing (July, 2008) was Hollander v. McCain. New Hampshire Republican Primary voter Fred Hollander sued John McCain and the Republican Party claiming that McCain’s birth in Panama made him ineligible. Mc Cain’s attorneys and the Republican National Committee attorneys got the lawsuit thrown out on the grounds that Hollander did not have standing to bring suit.
The first Obama eligibility lawsuit (Berg v. Obama) was filed in August, 2008 and dismissed in October, 2008.
The basis of the ruling was procedural. The appeals court said the governor couldn't be liable for vetting presidential candidates.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruling seems to make sense to other judges, many of whom have cited it in subsequent rulings.
Only when they ignore the footnotes where Ankeny admitted it had no legal precedent for it's assumptions. Second, subsequent arguments have dealt with the deficiencies in the Ankeny decision, and the couple of administrative judges who heard the cases ignored this while citing nothing to support the reason for doing so.
No highly respected conservative constitutional attorney has taken an Obama eligibility lawsuit as a case.
This doesn't mean anything. It's circular logic and it doesn't address whether there may have been political reasons to avoid getting involved in what was considered too controversial by the timid Republican leadership.
The quality of the lawyering is a primary reason why many eligibility-related civil actions have been dismissed on dispositive motions.
No question. I've never relied on Orly Taitz as being competent.
The first eligibility-related lawsuit (filed in March, 2008) to be dismissed for lack of standing (July, 2008) was Hollander v. McCain. New Hampshire Republican Primary voter Fred Hollander sued John McCain and the Republican Party claiming that McCain’s birth in Panama made him ineligible. Mc Cain’s attorneys and the Republican National Committee attorneys got the lawsuit thrown out on the grounds that Hollander did not have standing to bring suit.
Hollander's case was a little muddled, and it probably wouldn't have succeeded given the Supreme Court's historical reliance on the law of nations whose principles would make McCain eligible.
The first Obama eligibility lawsuit (Berg v. Obama) was filed in August, 2008 and dismissed in October, 2008.
Right, and that dismissed on a procedural basis, was it not? No one claimed it would be easy to get a court to grant legal standing or to allow cases to proceed in spite of other procedural hurdles.