Tilting at windmills? Perhaps. Necessary? Yep.
Interesting to note that one Judge says, “this should be refiled quo warranto, in DC”. Then, another judge says, “Nope, don’t think so.” Sounds like the stuff appeals are made of, but I’ll defer to the fine legal minds here, at FR.
I, along with a great many others, have a big issue with the whole ‘standing’ concept. It’s been argued here, ad nauseum, but it still just doesn’t make sense to rational people that a US citizen, or a member of the Armed Forces of the US, or a directly opposed candidate from the same election cycle...not one of them has ‘standing’ to challenge this pretender in the US Court system. It’s simply preposterous. A classic example of the frequent conflict between what is legal and what is right.
The American people are beginning to raise their voices, and the din will be unbearable even at the top of the ivory tower on which the anointed one stands, looking out over the dwindling throng of 0bamunists and other assorted enablers.
It’s time to take back the country. And, every one of these despicable legal shams draws us closer to what should be avoidable, but may become necessary.
I suspect Zero knows that he will ultimately “lose” these cases but if he can drag them out for several years he will have “won”. Curious. The final admission on his part that he knew he really wasn’t eligible ‘cuz his dad was Kenyan will probably be the final blow to what was once the U.S. Interesting times, fer sure.
I, along with a great many others, have a big issue with the whole ‘standing’ concept. It’s been argued here, ad nauseum, but it still just doesn’t make sense to rational people that a US citizen, or a member of the Armed Forces of the US, or a directly opposed candidate from the same election cycle...not one of them has ‘standing’ to challenge this pretender in the US Court system. It’s simply preposterous. A classic example of the frequent conflict between what is legal and what is right.
“Standing” as a lawyer once told me “means whether the judge got some last nite, or not”.
Standing in a court case is the excuse used by a judge to not hear a case. Amazing that the ACLU always has “standing” no matter how vague or frivilous their case is....but someone asking Obama for proof of birth location.....nope.
Its my opinion a court would be more inclined to find standing, or quo warranto under its discretion, if there were something concrete on the other side of the problem. Suppose a court did open the door, what is the case? There are no really substantial facts which indicate Obama was born somewhere besides Hawaii. There are plenty of suspicions and questions, but no real substantial evidence. The only point of opening the door would be a fishing expedition, which is probably going to net a physical copy of the COLB. Nobody is going to let their courtroom become a circus for that reason.
On the questions of NBC, there is no case at all. So if the door gets opened, nothing is going happen. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for a court to open the door and go through all the hassle. Give a court an actual Kenyan BC, or something else substantial, and the standing might appear.
I actually think there is a legal basis for standing under a different type of argument, and if it didn’t win, it would at least not be laughable. I would provide it, except for the fact that there is nothing to offer once the door is opened. A court may end up doing this on its own for the same reason, but it hasn’t happened yet, although I have seen a few hints in some of the holdings.
parsy, who is sitting, not standing
parsy