The Obots have been keeping score on the loses of the so-called birther cases in court. Many of the cases were dismissed for lack of subject jurisdiction.
The legal reason - the political question doctrine.
The Ninth Circuit has taken up the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction to settle a dispute if a candidate for the presidency is eligible.
The case is Peta Lindsay, et al v. Debra Bowen.
You can listen to the oral argument here and the opening question from the Court is where their decision is heading and the lawyer for Lindsay sounds exactly like the Obots argument and he cited case law which is meaningless.
He admitted she was less than 35 years old.
The direction of the Court is heading the same direction as I argued in my case against the president.
Could you imagine if Orly Taitz was SOS of California and kept the birther Barack Obama off the California ballot using California election laws?
And since Congress is a Republican majority - the Obot's head would be spinning - screaming all along the court has to settle the dispute.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Since Peta Lindsay is not a sitting president of the United States, there is no political question here.
The Court asked a hypo of the SOS.
In the hypo Orly could be SOS and could have kept a sitting president off the ballot - are you still going to hold to the political question doctrine - A Republican majority Congress could just say oh well.
Leaving a sitting president with no legal recourse.
Remember a sitting president was illegally on the ballot in the primary in Indiana.
It was interesting to hear her stumble.
Er, I know you dont deal in facts just gibberish, but in the real world Ankeny V Daniels was an Indiana case that specifically ruled that Barack Obama was eligible to be President.
So, under Indiana Law there was nothing illegal about Barack Obama being on the ballot.
Now if you are talking about a PRIMARY, a primary is simply an internal Party Ballot with no real legal power. If for some reason Barack Obama had been blocked on being on the ballots for the Democratic Party of Indiana, possibly by someone in the Democratic Party, he could simply have had his name placed on the general election ballot and won anyway.
Especially as the courts would by then have thrown out the SOS's determination as being one of a fruitcake.
I'm not really sure why were explaining this to you as you don't want to understand this, but hey.
With understanding
Suranis
Actually I'm listening to the audio and neither the appellant (Lindsay) nor the appellee (Bowen) are challenging the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit (nor of the lower court) and neither have advanced an argument based on the "political question doctrine".
So... uh?
With Confusion as to what your listening to, cause it ain't this audio,
Suranis.
Ok, after listening to it all, heres a summary. The plaintiffs argument could be summed up as "I think its really unfair that the SOS determined that age 27 is less than the Age 35 as mentioned in the constitution, so the SOS should not have the ability to do maths and put her on the ballot, because theres nothing in the constitution about an age restriction to be a president elect, and we cant have SOS's going about doing the job of congress and interpreting that the fact that she is 27 disqualifies her, yo." Or in other words "Bollox."
The AG lawyer did a pretty fair job of defense, but she did stumble a couple of times, but not where you, Lamb, said she did in your comment. She did a fine job of answering the "what if the SOS is a birther" question, namely that whatever the dispute about some fact about President Obama, there is no dispute that 27 is less than 35 so therefore the SOS should have and does have the right to toss obviously frivolous candidates from the ballot, while sending real disputes to congress.
Yours respectfully
Suranis.
If a birther Secretary of State kept an eligible candidate off the ballot, would the courts order the candidate onto the ballot?
Answer: Yes.
And?
Hey "counselor": Oral argument from another (non-binding) court isn't an authority. And audio recordings don't have page numbers.
So: Ready to admit that you are totally wrong? Or on to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Hey Lamb
Just letting you know that your appeal has failed.
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/opinions/ops/sm-1485.pdf
Thomas Lamb brought suit in Alaska seeking an order directing then-
presidential candidate Barack Obama to produce certain personal records. The superior
court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit on four grounds: (1) failure to perfect service;
(2) lack of standing; (3) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (4) failure to state a claim
for relief. Mr. Lamb appeals. We agree with the superior court's rulings on lack of
standing, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim for relief,
collectively, and therefore AFFIRM the superior court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit
without needing to reach the issue of service.
We adopt the superior court's decision in relevant part, attached as an
Appendix.
In other words, you screwed everything up so much that they didn't need to deal with the fact that you screwed up service as well.
Have a great Saturday.
Suranis
So what happened?
Is this site dead now? No activity.
Looks like the lights are off.
Lamb lacks the stones to acknowledge that he lost. Or that he was wrong.
Post a Comment