“So, to extend your hypothetical: What should conservatives do when they have a reasonable suspicion that the current POTUS isn’t even eligible to hold the office, and the SCOTUS abdicated their responsibility to engage on this check/balance system set up by the founders?”
Ok, here is my problem with this:
There are a great number of attorneys who are no friend of the liberal administration, so I can either believe 2 things...they have either looked at what Taitz and company have done and decided there is no legal grounds to proceed on
or
I can decide everyone is in on it but Taitz and company, which seems to be what she is claiming now with the planned protest against Bill O’Reilly and the complaints that no conservative commentator will advance her arguments.
My view of the SCOTUS in this is that they haven’t been given a legally sound case to weigh in on so far, what has reached their desks has been a poor mishmash of competing legal theories and a truckload of suspicion. That is not what we want the SCOTUS to proceed on in any case, good lord can you imagine what a liberal court would do with that precedent if given the chance?
Give them a solid case that has gone through the proper channels and they would jump on this, the problem is ass Judge Carter noted that none of these cases were brought with the proper plaintiffs who had followed the proper process for challenging a candidate but instead they filed a barrage of cases afterwards and now want their day in court.
As I have said before, this kind of thing is going to make it impossible to actually enforce this next time around. Yes, we lost but we can either keep running into a brick wall or we can use this to make every state enact provisions to require proof of eligibility or we can see this again in 2012...which do you want?
What you’ve got there is a logical fallacy of false dilemma. There’s plenty of other possibilities besides the 2 you mention.
My view of the SCOTUS in this is that they haven’t been given a legally sound case to weigh in on so far, what has reached their desks has been a poor mishmash of competing legal theories and a truckload of suspicion.
***That’s just ducking. If they wanted to look into it, there was plenty to look at. They made their choice and now that this stuff is going on in the courts, it could make them look very compromised. There was a reason why the founding fathers gave SCOTUS employment for life, it was to keep them from considering the political ramifications of their decisions and choosing selfishly. The system did not work in this case.
That is not what we want the SCOTUS to proceed on in any case,
***Bullstuff. They could have ruled on Berg v. Obama and been done with it. That was before the inauguration. Now all this stuff going on after the inauguration is “not what we want the SCOTUS to proceed on”? Baloney. If only the courts were so nitpicky about the constitutional requirements for POTUS.
good lord can you imagine what a liberal court would do with that precedent if given the chance?
***No worse than they’ve already done.
Give them a solid case that has gone through the proper channels and they would jump on this,
***Baloney. They already could have jumped on it, but no one in the judiciary wants to touch this lightning rod.
the problem is ass Judge Carter noted that none of these cases were brought with the proper plaintiffs who had followed the proper process for challenging a candidate but instead they filed a barrage of cases afterwards and now want their day in court.
***Same old Process arguments that amount to nothing.
As I have said before, this kind of thing is going to make it impossible to actually enforce this next time around.
Yes, we lost but we can either keep running into a brick wall or we can use this to make every state enact provisions to require proof of eligibility or we can see this again in 2012...which do you want?
***I want both. Are you going to answer my question, about what should conservatives do? You spent considerable effort on that response without even answering the question.
Yes, we lost but we can either keep running into a brick wall or we can use this to make every state enact provisions to require proof of eligibility or we can see this again in 2012...which do you want?
Just one state if the proof/certification is transparent to the public at large will allow for some assurances even if other states don’t require that proof.