okey dokey...gotten down to personal slings and arrows as usual.

Either get back on topic or this puppy will be put to bed.

BTW, I really enjoyed all of the legal explanations and opinions on the first page. :JEKYLHYDE

Sorry to interupt the insults but the case this thread was started about has been tossed.

"Lack of Standing".

http://www.americasright.com/

Apparently, according to Federal Court now, "we the citizens" don't have legal right to challenge a candidates qualifications. Nice.

Jamo,

what's your take on this?

:D

The one undeniable fact in this case is that BHO refuses to produce his birth certificate and is going to incredible lengths to make this issue go away. In any other election with any other candidate, the press would be screaming from the rooftops about this on a daily basis. But they won't go near this because they know it can only lead to something incriminating for BHO. At the very least this should taint his presidency forever with lingering questions about his legitimacy, just as GWB was unjustly tainted with the Florida fiasco, the difference of course being that suspicions of BHO are wholly justified, given the overall murkiness of his entire self-constructed legend.


So then tell me, how does a little ole’ nobody of a citizen - like me - compel someone like Obama to verify his constitutional eligibility to run and/or serve as POTUS if not through the courts???

Voters have “no standing” in making sure candidates are constitutionally eligible to run for office???

When you have a clear case of a man (Obama) who has made a point of keeping virtually EVERYTHING about his background a secret - from medical records and college transcripts - to a valid birth certificate, how do you allow him to continue to stonewall the American people with his lies and secrecy? I thought the courts existed to allow for redress of grievances, and THIS is a pretty big one!

Were any of us seeking employment, we may have to do everything from provide official documentation of our eligibility to work in this country, to provide medical records suggesting we are of sound mind and body for the job, and even pee in a bottle, if needed!

Unfortunately, the same standard for employment in the private sector doesn’t seem to apply to public servants (if it did, Barney Frank and company NEVER could have gotten elected!)

The system is therefore rigged not to protect “we the people” but “they the politicians.” Personally, I find it sickening.

OK, so we get out and vote, and send this a**hole back to Kenya or wherever the hell else he might have come from. Fine with me. But don’t tell me we shouldn’t be outraged by this judge’s all too transparently political decision.

This judge is an embarassment.

I suggested it would be tossed on lack of standing when the suit first came to light, and most recently 10 days ago on Gasholes.

"Standing" is a rather simple concept, but one which turns on the technicalities of specific facts. This case will likely be appealed, and higher courts might well reverse or remand. At this juncture, the question is whether a candidate of a political party has the ability to take office as the POTUS. He has not been elected...the delegates to the electoral college haven't even been selected. It may be a threatened harm to a citizen of the U.S., but until he takes office...a citizen has yet to be affected. Certain threatened harms can be enjoined, but in this case, the court would have to make a rather extraordinary assumption that Obama will win...which a member of the judiciary branch won't do. Now, if each of the political parties had rules which required that every candidate meet the requirements of taking office, then the party's own rules could be utilized, and a party member would have standing to initiate them, or ask a court to require the party's leadership to initiate them.

I decided to sit back when I read one poster's reference to "guilt" in his first post on the first page in a civil suit ("guilt" is a criminal matter, not civil). Decided to watch and enjoy until asked. The case never turned on discovery issues. If the party bringing an action lacks standing (or, as another example, if a court lacks jurisdiction), you never get your foot in the phuking door and get to ask questions (ie., "discovery").

Not a flame...just an obserservation. Note that when election issues arise as they have in the past two elections...labor lawyers (management and union) were called in by both sides to argue over such things as hanging chads and other such things. Why labor lawyers you might ask? Because we deal with this sh!t every damn day. I will be involved in an NLRB election in two states at several sites for a rather significant multi-national next week...dealing with mail balloting, eligibility of voters, election conduct of both the parties as well as the NLRB, standing of individuals to challenge the election, etc. This all comes at the end of a rather hectic two months of litigation concerning how the election should be conducted, and all of that remains on appeal.

This is what we do everyday. I say all of this in order to preempt the normal backlash and commentary of what a$$holes attorneys are and how they screw everything up.

From our perspective...we just sit back and enjoy laymen making a$$es out of themselves by offering up assinine legal opinions.

Having assplained all of this to my own particular satisfaction, which should more than suffice for all of you, I am now going to close this thread. Probable overstepping my ability to push the button with my finger, but after having given you all the "finger" I find myself with an overwhelming urge to use that finger one more time in this thread. In addition...the court has spoken. Attorneys and those in court usually know that means it's time to STFU.

All of this is meant with humor, in case any of you lack that...but really, the thread is done anyway. :3DSMILE: