I feel like I entered into some kind of school yard argument, but what is the question?
Why didn’t the judge rule on the motion to dismiss?
Answer: Because he can’t. Opposing counsel is allowed time to respond.
That’s how it works.
Party A files a motion.
Pary B responds.
Judge rules.
If he rule in favor of the motion, Orly would appeal (I assume she knows this)...the appeal would be granted...and the judge would be back in this same place in a few months.
You are waging an battle of wits with an unarmed man. You know that, don’t you?
Answer: Because he can’t. Opposing counsel is allowed time to respond.
The judge didn't even read the motion to dismiss before the hearing on Tuesday. The onus will be on the defending lawyers based on the many statements in the hearing giving by judge Carter. And Orly should be confident the defendant's appeal will go nowhere.
He could have not even heard the hearing and summarily dismissed the case if he wanted to and set aside the usual procedures.
However, as you say, it would have giving Orly a good point in appeal, but knowing the 9th Circus of Appeals, they probably would have uphold the judge's dismissal.
BTW, it's always some newbie that comes to the aid of trolls on these threads.
The other question has to do with official court transcripts that NS has BS'd about in his posts.
I’ve tried my best to understand the unique theory that is prevalant here and I believe that I at least have a rudimentary understanding of it. They think that if a judge discovers evidence indicating that Obama is not a NBC, that the judiciary branch has the authority to invalidate the ‘08 election and remove him from office. And judges are primary “justice seekers”.
This is different from impeachment. They believe that judges have an obligation to see to it that laws and the Constitution are enforced. The following idea is trivia and a judge can easily overlook it:
“Only actual cases and controversies may be heard by the federal courts; the judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are precluded because of problems with standing, mootness, or ripeness. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties”
I try to let my imagination wander to see if this theory could possibly have any connection to the real world. It is a difficult mental experiment. I get stuck at the point where it seems clear that the threshold for impeachment would be much lower than the threshold for the judiciary to remove the president, under this alleged authority that they have. And impeachment would come long before Justice Roberts sent an email over to the Joint Chiefs demanding that he remove the POTUS from the premises (outside of the impeachment process).
Perhaps we could call this the “Judge as superhero” theory. Judge must act as Attorney General, Detective, prosecutor, grand jury ... 4-in-1 deal. The Constitution demands it and the Republic must be preserved.