Posted on 09/17/2009 11:52:15 AM PDT by Drew68
The case was made when the secretaries of state, the parties, and the congress admitted they didn’t check the guys birth certificate. No one is asking the court to make the case. They are asking the court to uphold the constitution and oath taken by every judge. Judges grant discovery all the time. The have to compel the guy to present the records because he refuses to do so. The court should demand the “best evidence” be presented so that the issues can be decided on that basis.
How does this make Orly's case? You aren't making sense.
"No one is asking the court to make the case. They are asking the court to uphold the constitution and oath taken by every judge."
Oh please. You don't make your case by demanding the judge uphold the consitution. You make it by presenting a factual case for the court to act on.
"Judges grant discovery all the time."
When there is a case. Orly isn't getting that far because she can't present one. You guys want discovery first and a case second. It doesn't work that way.
I do not have an opinion about her sanity, but the passage you quote doesn't mean she thinks her client is on trial. A plaintiff, and for that matter a defendant in any civil case has a presumptive right to a jury trial. It doesn't mean the plaintiff is "on trial". Just that they have a right to a trial of the issues.
As to the motion, it seems her complaint is that she was not accorded the amount of time to respond provided in the rules.
As to the right to a jury trial, you are correct that injunctive relief is not submitted to a jury, but is that the only relief sought in the case? If she is asking for other things, there could be a basis for the right to a jury trial.
As to state vs. federal. There you are mistaken, although the reference to “the states rules” is misleading. The federal courts have a dual set of rules: one that is common to all the federal courts in the nation and what are known as “local rules”, which are promulgated on a state-by-state and circuit by circuit basis. So she may be referring to a local rule when she refers to a rule applicable to federal court in that particular location.
“Since the founding of the Republic, Congress has done a number of things that were overturned because they ran counter to The Constitution, and since the Constitution mandates that the President be “natural born” no acts, or laws passed by Congress can counter this, because The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”
Well said. No election nor negligence by congress can undo any part of the Constitution. The SCOTUS really needs to be hearing a case on this to definitively define what “natural born” in the Constitution means. Or, Congress can define it and be subject to suit which the SCOTUS will have to decide. Ultimately, the SCOTUS is going to have to decide this issue.
“The Founding Father took note. There is another check and balance. It is called the Second Amendment.”
Be careful to not give Speaker Pelosi more ammunition in claiming how “violent” the tone of the country has become.
“ordered Rhodes to pay the defendant’s court costs”
What costs? The attornies that represented POTUS Obama work for the taxpayers. These were NOT private attornies. Does a federal court charge federal attornies “court costs”?????
"Costs" doesn't mean attorneys' fees. It is automatic in federal court that the loser pays the winner's "costs," but that refers only to things like filing fees, court reporters' fees and the like. In this case, which didn't go to trial or even into discovery, the defendants' costs are probably very minimal.
You guys????
It is you guys don't want the truth to come out, but it will; one way or the other. The burden is on the office holder to prove he is qualified and some judge or appellate court will catch it. If they don't, an insider or investigator will eventually get to it. There is more than one way to get to the truth even though those in official positions and their cheerleaders don't want it to happen.
We are talking about Orly's court case. You are trying to change the subject. Somewhat understandable given what Orly has.
"It is you guys don't want the truth to come out, but it will."
I have no problem with the truth, whatever it may be. Hell, it's a no lose propostion for me. If by some miracle I turn out to be wrong in my interpretation of the facts, then Obama is done. I'd take that trade. But I'm not wrong.
"The burden is on the office holder to prove he is qualified and some judge or appellate court will catch it."
Wrong. There is no such burden at this point in time. The only time that burden existed was prior to being sworn in, and he met it then. You can argue that the burden wasn't strong enough and someone should have been more thorough, but that's a different argument.
We're past that now. He's the president. He has no burden to prove anything to be president. The burden belongs to anyone seeking to change that status quo by going into court and proving a case. But the birthers haven't even begun to come close to meeting that burden. Until they do they are wasting their time in court.
Of course, not all of them are wasting time. Some of them are getting exactly what they want. Money, fame, attention, and making conservatives look like idiots.
If anything needs to be stopped it is the acceptance of the derisive, ‘Birthers’ term; in the same way, people who visit regularly here and who post on occasion are not obligated to think of themselves as or respond to others by the term ‘Freepers.’
Once labels have been attached and insults traded, the process soon heads straight downhill and any and all merits of the debate itself have been lost in the noise.
The greater issue for future situations where trust in the system must be assured is to examine whether a better level of transparency is required as part of the nomination process where the applicant for the office is treated with at least the same scrutiny as a kid applying for his first job delivering the local newspaper.
Given the birthers penchant for instantly insulting anyone that doesn’t accept their strange theories, they’ve got no standing to complain about insults or labels.
Besides, “birthers” is the generally accepted term for this group of people, just as “truthers” refers to 9/11 conspiracists.
Words are labels. They serve a purpose. We can use a simple word, a label, to refer to a complex concept. That’s language. That’s communication. There’s nothing wrong with it.
BTW, I have no problem being labeled a “freeper”. I’ve been here for twelve years. I am a freeper.
Don’t assume that I’m taking sides; it’s just that there are others who are watching.
I am asking for the truth to come out, you are fighting that.
I have said nothing about the attorney except that she is fighting the fight you should be fighting. I pointed out to you that there is more than one way for the truth to come out. She is just one of those. Now you can characterize my statement as you will, but I know what I have said all along. If you want to make up my views, then argue with yourself.
I agree totally. I believe Roberts et al. already suspect that 0bama doesn't qualify and has been dodging the issue and doesn't want to take the heat that a decision would bring. They're probably afraid of the resulting riots led by the Black Panthers, ACORN, etc.
Maybe this was the violence that Madam Pelosi was referring to in her theatrics yesterday.
You cannot be serious? You have no idea the odds you have to overcome in a court to even be heard. Your opinion is very naive and rooted in ignorance.
Orly has been very successful and has a genius about winning in insurmountable odds.
You can’t even come close to getting as far as she has.
The facts would indicate otherwise.
"Orly has been very successful and has a genius about winning in insurmountable odds."
She hasn't even been slightly successful. She hasn't won anything at all. She hasn't even gotten a case heard.
"You can’t even come close to getting as far as she has."
Exactly how far do you think she's gotten?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.