[DiogenesLamp]

I would agree with you if there were one or two aberrant rulings that were outliers. But there have been hundreds in practically every state in the union and from judges and justices who are conservative, moderate and liberal.

Which all rely on an excessively broad, but long assumed interpretation of a 1898 court decision that didn't even have as much of a majority as Plessy v Ferguson, and about which, mistakes have been found.

I restate the point. The fundamental facts are in dispute, but all the courts begin deliberation on the assumption that their long standing biases are correct. They simply never look at the issue from it's origins, but merely rely on the claims of that aforementioned 1898 "precedent".

Once again, "process" without regard for accuracy.

Did any Tea Party endorsed conservative member of Congress object to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds that he is constitutionally ineligible? Nope.

Non Sequitur. In fact, it is reversal of the Argumentum ad Numerum fallacy. That no one objects does not make something true.

[Jeff Winston]

Non Sequitur. In fact, it is reversal of the Argumentum ad Numerum fallacy. That no one objects does not make something true.

Sure as hell doesn't make it false, either.

I say the sun rises in the east. Nobody objects to the claim.

Your point is that the fact that no one objects doesn't make it true.

Well, that's true. But the fact that no one objects sure as hell doesn't make the statement false.

For that, you need some EVIDENCE to show that the statement is false.

And this is exactly what you lack. Any real and credible evidence to prove the bullshit birther claim.

You say the Founding Fathers defined "natural born citizen" as "born on US soil of two citizen parents."

You've produced absolutely no credible evidence that's the case.

And when others produce credible evidence that that's NOT the case - and a LOT OF IT - you whine that the opinions of lawyers and court and close associates of the Founding Fathers, and of the Framers themselves, don't matter.

You're full of shit. And it's obvious to anyone who has half a brain who has been following the issue.

[Nero Germanicus]

Your critiques of the judiciary as a whole and specific judicial rulings on this issue are interesting for blog debates but they bear no relevance to real world occurrences in moving the eligibility issue forward to resolution.

They are fun little intellectual/logic excercises but nothing more and nothing less. In the real world, court rulings stand until they reversed, period, end of story.

So whine away but judges rule however they rule and if they are not reversed (as Wong Kim Ark has not been in 114 years) the rulings become stare decisis.