You don’t seem to have much grasp of what was held in the case. There was no finding of lack of stsnding. To the contrary, it was clearly assuemd by the finding that the court did have jurisdiction because of the statute. Moreover, the judge clearly relied upon extrajudicial sources for his decesion against Colonel Hollister demonstrating a clear biase based upon those sources rather than pointing to anythin in the complaint itself. You also seem to be saying tha bias statue in question, in its present form, can be ignored because it was ignored in this case. It’s an interesting perspective that judges are free to ignore such a statute, one that tosses the concept of a rule of law, in this case, of a constitutional rule of law.
I agree that any judge ‘texting and twittering’ is absurd for a judge to mention in an opinion. However, he refers to the ‘vigilant’ citizenry having conducted a proper vetting of then-candidate Obama.
I must confess, I didn’t watch all the debates or pressers thru the primaries. Was then-candidate Obama ever questioned in a debate by other candidates or the media panels or moderators, or in any press conference, about his natural born citizen status? And, if so, how did he respond? Is there any evidence the question was ever raised in any venue or circumstance that might be considered semi-official, rather than the “texting/twittering” of an allegedly vigilant citizenry?
It’s hard to imagine that the other candidates (or their staffs) or the media did not read his autobiographical book without some red flags being raised due to his father’s citizenship. I really would like to know if that extent of vetting was ever done.