I did address this above. This was not a conventional lawsuit, in which a judge could rule that the defendant owes money to plaintiff A but not to plaintiff B; it was an administrative hearing for the purposes of making a recommendation to the Secretatry of State, who has to decide whether Obama is on the ballot or not. Kemp could hardly rule that when Farrar goes to vote, Obama will not be on his ballot, but when the other plaintiffs vote, Obama will be on the ballot. Malihi was entitled to consider all of the evidence anyone put before him when he made his recommendation to Kemp, and Kemp was entitled to consider Malihi's recommendation when he made his decision.
And you heard it here first: the Georgia courts will uphold Kemp's decision, and SCOTUS will not review the case. You can take that to the bank.
It ignores the point that an internet document is not proof of anything. No actual proof of birth within the Country has been demonstrated.
And you heard it here first: the Georgia courts will uphold Kemp's decision, and SCOTUS will not review the case. You can take that to the bank.
Oh, I have little doubt of that. The Judiciary is so stuck in a rut that they cannot even examine anything outside their preconceived notions. There has always been a Liberal ratchet effect in the Judiciary. It always moves left, it never moves right. When Judges change laws, they always change them leftward, and then they are called "precedent."
And then all subsequent judges are stuck in this new, made up "rut."