Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
The issue with the challenges that occurred prior to the election, and between the election and the inauguration, is that they had the wrong plaintiffs. I believe, based on this opinion, that the only real chance of getting a full hearing on a candidate’s qualifications would be for another candidate (major or minor) to bring a challenge prior to the election (or, as you mentioned, maybe in between the election and the inauguration).
Standing is a tough hurdle to clear, but it is an important check on judicial power.
On average, yes, but it depends on which three judges form the panel that hears the initial appeal.
|
Judge Carter has helped more than is readily apparent. Remember that Berg's, Orly's, Donofrio's and Wrotowski's filings at the SCOTUS were "dismissed" without comment late last year and in January. Well, we have a LOT of "comment" from Judge Carter and he's actually HELPED quite a bit here, especially when considering from a legal standpoint this case was a long-shot in his Jurisdiction and with the current interpretations of the Standing and "injury" in cases brought by voters and candidates as plaintiffs. I point again to some of Judge Carter's final comments on Oct. 5: (from the 10-05-08 WaveyDavey report): He turned to plaintiffs and said, I'm most
To the defendants he said, I'm most concerned
He turned back to plaintiffs and said, if I rule
|
I've enjoyed it for twelve years now. If my telling the truth is some small part of FR's ongoing development, then I'm sure I'll continue to enjoy it for another twelve.
The Judge decides what remedy to take if the court finds Obama is not a NBC. He could have decided to turn it over to congress for action since it is their constitutional duty - not the court’s - to remove an illegal president. He could have rejected what Orly was asking for as a remedy from him - removal of Obama from office.
Judaical Kick the Can. Up it goes, only for Orly that means the 9th Circuit. Bad news. Or maybe good depending on how fast they punt on it. All the courts will punt this issue. Its virtually guaranteed.
Orly better start quoting Stevens on standing instead of Roberts and Scalia then.
Past actions would suggest something like, "A great victory was won today because we can now proceed to the next level and appeal this decision!"
I don't know if I understand exactly what you're saying. But, in 2012, if a competitive candidate would challenge O's eligibility to be on the ballot, in either the primary or general elections, then there would be a fair hearing and a judge would make a determination with respect to Obama's eligibility. Any evidence that Obama presented, like a Certification of Live Birth, would be subject to examination under the Federal Rules of Evidence, like any other document offered as evidence at trial.
If a candidate were to stipulate HI birth and only challenge on the grounds that he (Obama) doesn't meet the NBC requirements, it would become much more murky. There's no guarantee that case would be heard, but it is possible.
Orly is not an Ivy Leauge lawyer. I don’t agree that she deserves whatever you would have come her way in your disagreement with her cases.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel [P 28-29]
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
That's why we have campaigns. And we had one that lasted for the better part of two years where millions of dollars were spent and not one of Obama's opponents questioned his eligibility.
Then what did Judge Carter mean by this?
"In this case, it does seem highly unlikely that the replacement of President Obama with another Democratic nominee such as Hillary Clinton would have resulted in a victory for Plaintiffs Keyes, Drake, or Lightfoot of the American Independent Party. However, creating a dividing line for standing according to chance of success in political elections is, by the nature of our political system, an especially difficult determination because political elections lack predictability and can be greatly affected by a single speech or action of a candidate. At the same time, perhaps it is precisely this unpredictability of political elections that makes the claim of a third party candidate, who received less than one percent of the popular vote in the 2008 national election that did take place, too speculative to establish standing."
So where is that out of context?
He then proceeds to answer the question by noting that the Court is troubled by the very act of drawing lines.
But he had already drawn the line when he ruled Keyes did not have standing to sue, and by citing the ridiculous notion that his chances of victory were in any way diminished should Obama have been ineligible.
Good points BP2!
I can assure you I am most certainly not "wee wee'd up" at this moment.
Hell, I'd crack a beer if I didn't have to leave for work in two hours.
Which gives no weight whatsoever to the Art. II, Sec. 1 requirement that in order to be a sitting President, one must be 35 or over, 14 years a resident of the US, and a natural born citizen.
But what do I know, I'm just a citizen, natural born in fact, with no standing to have the Constitution which I swore to support and defend enforced against domestic enemies.
LOL — You must be a media matters fan, right?
I’m pinging this to a few FRiends who might have the original information handy on this particular subject. I honestly don’t have the time to look back over 18 mos. of postings to find the photos and other information I based my comment to you on.
Dear FRiends: If you have the photo of that Chinese leader with the Hawaiian COLB, could you please post it as well as any other info. related to the foreigners with Hawaiian COLBs to “BigGuy22”?
When my computer crashed a few months back I lost ALL of my saved info., and I don’t have time at the moment to go back through the numerous threads to find what I’m looking for... (Heaven forbid BG22 thinks I’m simply dismissing him. I’m not, I just don’t have the information handy, and hubby will be home in 15 mins. and we’ve got errands to run...). Thank you in advance if any are able to post that info. — I will appreciate it as then I can save it again, too. :)
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.