|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
The reason that the MSM is not discussing this issue is simple - it is a looney bin lawsuit. For those who think that the issue before the SCOTUS is Obama's eligibility, think again. What is on the table is whether or not to even consider whether or not Berg has any standing to bring about this lawsuit. All the lower courts have ruled that he has no standing. I suspect the SCOTUS will agree. If you read any balanced source, they say that the suit has no merit whatsoever. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlBut I am also sure that after this issue is put to rest, the looney bin contingent will rapidly develop new paranoid delusional conspiracy theories, insisting perhaps that Michelle Obama is really Osama Bin Ladin in drag, or the first dog is a equipped with an implanted video camera. Mark my word, the next conspiracy theory is just around the corner. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862 |
For those who think that the issue before the SCOTUS is Obama's eligibility, think again. What is on the table is whether or not to even consider whether or not Berg has any standing to bring about this lawsuit. All the lower courts have ruled that he has no standing. I suspect the SCOTUS will agree. If you read any balanced source, they say that the suit has no merit whatsoever. Wrong. The case that this thread is about is NOT the Berg case. Donofrio’s case is against the NJ SOS. And whether or not she should have made certain the Presidential candidates were ELIGIBLE for POTUS before allowing their names on the ballot. His claim is that along w/ Obama and McCain, there was another Presidential candidate who is not a natural born citizen. His name is Roger Calero and he was born in Nicaragua...should a SOS have allowed HIS name on the ballot? As far as I can see, there is no provision of any state or federal law that requires any public official to establish the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for office. There may be some who think that is AOK or unimportant. I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862 |
Thanks for your support, FH.
I appreciate everyone who has been kind enough or interested enough to share their thoughts and opinions on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862 |
When is the Supreme Court going to issue the stay? Or at least make a statement? I too will be very surprised if they issue a stay. Leo's case is on the docket for this Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025 |
When is the Supreme Court going to issue the stay? Or at least make a statement? I too will be very surprised if they issue a stay. Leo's case is on the docket for this Friday. Wanta bet on it??? 
FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered
"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
Wrong.
The case that this thread is about is NOT the Berg case. And the issue is the same - do they have any standing to bring the suit forward: An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.
In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."
Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464 |
Thanks awefully for the lecture FH. You just keep tilting at them windmills.....
Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464 |
It's actually amazing you can extract such a sermon from a one line suggestion. 
Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862 |
And the issue is the same - do they have any standing to bring the suit forward: Donofrio’s case does not depend on federal standing the way Berg's does. Donofrio’s case depends on standing in NJ. It will not be decided on the same grounds as Berg's. When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion. This is another thing Pete Williams gets wrong. Berg's case is NOT up for a private conference w/ the SCOTUS, like Donofrio’s case is. Berg's case has NOT been treated the same way that Donofrio’s has been.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015 |
Thanks awefully for the lecture FH. You just keep tilting at them windmills..... You are quite welcome. Keep on telling people what they can and cannot post because you don't like what they might say. And you keep chasing those kangaroos too....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614 |
I don't for one second believe this is being pursued for some righteous reason. All Donofrio cares about is getting the evil messiah Obama unelected and making a name for himself for doing it. This is a game of "I'm taking my ball and going home" being played out for the POTUS. It's ridiculous and a total waste of the courts time. I bet this thing would have been dropped like a hot potato had McCain won.
The election is over and Obama won. Not only did he win, but he won decisively. There is no way the SCOTUS will give this case any merit. I'm sure they will see it for the sour grapes it is.
Want2Stay
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880 |
This whole thing is stupid.
Get out your tin foil hats!
Divorced
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862 |
I don't for one second believe this is being pursued for some righteous reason. All Donofrio cares about is getting the evil messiah Obama unelected and making a name for himself for doing it. This is a game of "I'm taking my ball and going home" being played out for the POTUS. It's ridiculous and a total waste of the courts time. I bet this thing would have been dropped like a hot potato had McCain won. Donofrio began his case BEFORE the election, and included Obama,Calero, AND McCain in his suit against the NJ SOS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
Donofrio began his case BEFORE the election, and included Obama,Calero, AND McCain in his suit against the NJ SOS. The whole issue is ridiculous and is a waste of taxpayer money and SCOTUS time. It'll run its course and die the same death as the "issues" of ACORN, coal, and Ayers, that some fringes have latched on to for dear life. It's everyone's right to obsess over and discuss these issues, but as BK said, it may be smarter to give it up and move on. But to each their own, of course. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614 |
I don't for one second believe this is being pursued for some righteous reason. All Donofrio cares about is getting the evil messiah Obama unelected and making a name for himself for doing it. This is a game of "I'm taking my ball and going home" being played out for the POTUS. It's ridiculous and a total waste of the courts time. I bet this thing would have been dropped like a hot potato had McCain won. Donofrio began his case BEFORE the election, and included Obama,Calero, AND McCain in his suit against the NJ SOS. I know it was BEFORE, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an agenda behind it. Everyone knew it was a long shot for the GOP to win the presidency again in the current political climate. That's why the GOP sacrificed McCain. So Donofrio went out on a limb and assumed that Obama would win. Just because he put McCain in it too doesn't give it more credibility. Like I said, the only reason it has made it this far is because he pushed for it so vigorously. Had McCain won, he would have dropped it like a hot potato. Want2Stay
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862 |
"The whole issue is ridiculous", "is a waste of taxpayer money",
"This whole thing is stupid.","Get out your tin foil hats!"and "give it up" aren't refutations.
Do you know if Obama was properly vetted?
Is there a law that requires ANY public official to establish the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for office?
The Federal Election Commision said they have no responsibilty to do so.
So who does?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464 |
"The whole issue is ridiculous", "is a waste of taxpayer money",
"This whole thing is stupid.","Get out your tin foil hats!"and "give it up" aren't refutations.
Do you know if Obama was properly vetted?
Is there a law that requires ANY public official to establish the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for office?
The Federal Election Commision said they have no responsibilty to do so.
So who does? I am very conservative in my politics Marsh but this is really absolutely priceless. Obama will be President. (unfortunately) But this is just sour grapes. Give it up already. This really is what made America great - NOT.
Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464 |
Keep on telling people what they can and cannot post because you don't like what they might say. I don't believe I've ever told people what to post FH. I think you are free to post whatever you like here as am I. But just because you CAN post rubbish like this doesn't mean you SHOULD. The primary purpose of this site is after all Marriage Building. Doing some might be a more productive way IMO only of course. Or have you been banned from all the endless political sites around and have no other place to express your political opinions?
Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862 |
Exactly what is it you want me to give up?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464 |
Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
|
|
|
Moderated by Ariel, BerlinMB, Denali, Fordude, IrishGreen, MBeliever, MBSync, McLovin, Mizar, PhoenixMB, Toujours
|
0 members (),
371
guests, and
35
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,621
Posts2,323,489
Members71,946
| |
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
|
|
|
|
