"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.
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?
***Yes it is an argument. The SCOTUS can just deny the cases outright, but that has not happened on some of them. That is positive action. How many other issues that ARE conspiracy tinfoil hat cases have had 17 cases winding their way through the courts? NONE. How many have had 6 concurrent cases before SCOTUS, forwarded for conference 5 times? NONE. This is a legitimate constitutional issue.
Facts. Show me a correct, legal basis for a case against Obama’s eligibility. Suspicion is not a case.
***An issue is a legitimate constitutional issue well before any facts are established. Otherwise, there would be no discussion of an issue until a court decided upon it. Your threshold is so high that it’s absurd. Why is it that you have such a high threshold on this particular issue? When we look through your posting history, will we find such a high threshold for other issues?
Misunderstanding the law, or birth records, is not a case.
***This sentence is a non sequitur.
Show me a real case and I’ll say it’s a real issue.
***There are real cases in real courtrooms right now. Those 17 items are REAL CASES. That makes this a legitimate issue. There’s a 160 page report by Polarik + his other report + Israel Insider’s report, all bearing hard on the CoLB provided by fightthesmears and factcheck.org are forgeries. Those are FACTS that need to be considered in the CASES before the courts. John McCain just produced his birth certificate and all the noise went away for him; Obama hasn’t produced his and now the level of noise reaches to the SCOTUS. If this is political gamesmanship, then his judgement is properly called into question.