Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
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.html

But 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
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
 Quote:
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
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
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
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
 Originally Posted By: cinderella
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
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
 Originally Posted By: Marshmallow
 Originally Posted By: cinderella
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
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
 Originally Posted By: Marshmallow


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:

 Quote:
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


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx

AGG


Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
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
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
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
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
 Quote:
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.

 Quote:
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
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
 Originally Posted By: bigkahuna
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
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
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
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
This whole thing is stupid.

Get out your tin foil hats!


Divorced
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
 Quote:
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
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
 Originally Posted By: Marshmallow

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
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
 Originally Posted By: Marshmallow
 Quote:
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
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
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
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
 Originally Posted By: Marshmallow
"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
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
 Originally Posted By: ForeverHers
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
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
 Quote:
Give it up already.


Exactly what is it you want me to give up?

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
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.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
2 members (anchorwatch, 1 invisible), 30 guests, and 53 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Spartan Point He, OnTheRocks, Alise245, CVT, Olivia 80
71,700 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,537
Posts2,322,693
Members71,700
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5