Of course not. I'm talking about most of the remainder, i.e. the vast bulk of the court system. Most people can distinguish between "Idiot" and "sane", and so would not count the above mentioned Judges among the idiots. They are part of the exceptional few.
O.K., if you say so, then it MUST be true.
More like Vice Versa.
You’ll get no “argumentum ad nauseum” from me!
Again, are you sh*tting us? All you ever do is trot out this irrelevant statute, or that irrelevant statute, or this judge saying this, or that judge saying that. You never argue the CORE of the debate. Your sole argument is "Judges said it. I believe it. That settles it." Ad Nauseaum is the mindless repetition of the same thing, and that is exactly what you do.
Competent attorneys know how to “judge shop” without breaking ethics rules. You pick the jurisdiction you will file in and the judges you want to hear your case in order to up the odds of getting favorable rulings.
For example, Obama received only 24% of the vote in Utah, 27% in Wyoming, 28% in Nebraska’s 3rd Congressional District, 33% in Idaho and Oklahoma, 38% in North Dakota, 39% in Tennessee, and 40% in South Dakota.
Each of those jurisdictions had nearly no challenges to Obama’s eligibility.
Your attempts at argumentum ad hominem are funny.