Not likely in a presidential qualifications case. Plenty of cases are tsaken without a split. Bush v. Gore, NYT v. Sullivan, etc.
Listen, you and I best not interact. I find you to be intelligent, but a mean-spiritied, intellectually hidebound weenie. I may be wrong, but that's how I see you, and it's conclusive in my mind.
Go ahead and claim winning on the merits, I don't mind.
Bush v. Gore needed to be taken to resolve a presidential election. What I'm saying is that no lower court is going to rule a candidate ineligible due to having had dual citizenship at birth. The SCOTUS will simply deny cert as the dismissal of the case below would be completely consistent with SCOTUS prior decisions.
Listen, you and I best not interact.
Then I'd suggest refraining from making assertions on a point of law that are incorrect which you then can't defend. Otherwise, error invites correction. Capiche?
I find you to be intelligent, but a mean-spiritied, intellectually hidebound weenie.
Seriously, you're going to cop-out by going ad hominem? You're displaying a rather thin skin there, counselor.
My posts have all been polite within the bounds of an open discussion on a point of disagreement. What on earth do you construe as mean-spirited? Perhaps you're not quite equipped for this type of forum.
Go ahead and claim winning on the merits, I don't mind.
Let's see. You've made an assertion on a point of law which you haven't been able to support in the least. Is this supposed to be some gracious offering? Of course I've won. Sheesh.