I meant 'motion to dismiss'. Although, I suspect you figured that out...
the motion the Obamanoid lawyers submitted to the court last Friday.
Secondly, the judge could not hace granted the motion to dismiss yesterday. It would violate the plaintiffs’ rights.
You ignored what I said. That would be [very] highly unlikely to happen. Like you said, it would come back on the judge in appeal.
And the judge’s comments - while interesting - don’t really mean squat. Most motions to dismiss and, their counterparts of motions for summary judgment ARE denied. Because there is a strong burden in both. But occasionally, they are.
Yes, I don't see much of a chance that Obama wins the motion to dismiss.
Oh, I differ. They do mean more than "squat". I'm sure the judge meant what he said at the hearing. Burden looks more on the defendant after what I read. Here's the probable "Motion to dismiss" put forth by Obama:
Obama lawyer. Oh judge oh judge, they don't have any standing!
Judge. Yes they do. Members of the Armed Forces have standing.
Obama lawyer. Oh judge, oh judge, this case brought by the plaintiff's is frivolous so throw it out. Judge so and so said it's been thoroughly Twittered and blogged! *snicker*
Judge. See my opinion about standing - their case is not frivolous.
Judge. motion to dismiss denied!!
The case moves on. They can take the issue up with the 9rd Circus when they eventually lose.
BTW, do you know Michael Michael?
9rd = 9th. For those who can’t figure it out.