Replies

It is the eligibility challengers who have used the courts a grand total of 349 times (original jurisdiction, state and federal appellate and Supreme Court of the United States applications and petitions). The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
The judiciary has no power to remove a sitting president. Once Obama’s electoral votes were counted and certified by both Houses of Congress in January of 2009, the 12th Amendment is clear and precise, the person with a majority of the votes of the electors “shall be the president.”
Railing against the judiciary is irrelevant.
The only constitutional means to remove a sitting president is via a Bill of Impeachment, a Senate trial and 67 guilty votes for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I would be most supportive, even at this late date, of a congressional investigation into Obama’s legitimacy to be president and if the evidence is there, of the drafting of a Bill of Impeachment. Many people in the ineligibility movement have been patiently waiting for new evidence to emerge from the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse’ investigation. Whenever that new evidence is released, perhaps it will spur congressional action.
Call me crazy, but in the blood sport of American politics, I have always favored employing strategies that win over strategies that fail.

It is the eligibility challengers who have used the courts a grand total of 349 times (original jurisdiction, state and federal appellate and Supreme Court of the United States applications and petitions). The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Different people trying different things, but I completely agree. Trying to solve serious civil issues through the courts is destined to failure. *THEY* are a large part of what is wrong with this country.

The judiciary has no power to remove a sitting president.

And as slow as they are to get off their @$$, they are no threat to any *candidate* either.

So now we have a constitutional requirement with no agency of enforcement. Those stupid founders. How could they have been so foolish?

What are the cases of those 349 in which a court granted standing? It would be interesting to know. It would also be interesting to know how many decisions on the merits of the issue, with regard to the eligibility of the man in the Oval Office were rendered on the merits by the Supreme Court and United States Courts of Appeal and in what circuits.