No. Because they are denying them as fast as they can.
***Not true, answer has already been posted to you and yet the dog returns to its vomit. Like I said, Take that up with Billybob, who called my approach “a good analysis”. Or will you be stacking up your credentials against Billybob’s?
Being sent to conference doesn’t mean anything about merits or the chances of success. It’s just the procedure.
***I note that you simply overlook the argument that there are 17 cases in the pipeline. That means this is not a basic conspiracy issue, it’s a legitimate constitutional issue. No other conspiracy issue has ever gotten that much into court, especially in so short a time. That’s a sign of legitimacy. But you conveniently overlook that. Is that more reflective of the approach of the average troll or the honorable FReeper? Note also that your argument is completely invalid because Berg hasn’t been denied yet. Only his injunction was denied, not his case.
So... what is it going to take to get you to acknowledge that this is a valid constitutional issue, if not 17 cases, 6 concurrent SCOTUS cases, 5 forwards and the resident constitutional scholar from FR saying that it’s a “good analysis”? And why is the threshod so high on this issue? Did you log onto the chemtrail threads and berate those guys? Did any of them ever have cases before the SCOTUS? If your intentions are honorable you will honorably answer my questions; if your intentions are not honorable, then we all can see why you have been called, out of frustration, an issue-specific troll.
As they say, anyone can sue for anything. That's not quite true in this case, but still. What's happening is that these cases are getting denied all the way up the chain. They are just following the procedure. Nothing about that instills any confidence.
"And why is the threshod so high on this issue? Did you log onto the chemtrail threads and berate those guys?"
Chemtrails? I don't think so. But I have on lots of other subjects, yes. But why should I have to justify my participation on these threads? Why is it any more necessary than you justifying yours? This is silly.
"Did any of them ever have cases before the SCOTUS?"
This one doesn't either. These cases have been submitted. So far they've done nothing but get denied.
"No. Because they are denying them as fast as they can."
***Not true, answer has already been posted to you and yet the dog returns to its vomit. Like I said, Take that up with Billybob, who called my approach “a good analysis”.
I don't know what answer you are refering to. Conference is where the court decides to take a case or not. Getting to conference only means the case was properly filed, it has nothing to do with merits.
If BillyBob wants to clarify his comment, that's up to him. I hope he does.
"Being sent to conference doesn’t mean anything about merits or the chances of success. It’s just the procedure."
"***I note that you simply overlook the argument that there are 17 cases in the pipeline. That means this is not a basic conspiracy issue, it’s a legitimate constitutional issue."
I skipped it because it's not an argument. 17 cases in the pipeline just means that someone has filed 17 cases. How many have had any positive action?
"So... what is it going to take to get you to acknowledge that this is a valid constitutional issue"
Facts. Show me a correct, legal basis for a case against Obama's eligibility. Suspicion is not a case. Misunderstanding the law, or birth records, is not a case. Show me a real case and I'll say it's a real issue.