Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligiblity

[Coito ergo sum]

So.... What's an 'unnatural' birth?

If Jesus had been born in America, he could never have become President.

The thumpers would never vote for Jesus anyway - he was a Marxist, a Progressive, and he hung out with people of questionable moral character.

The Rethuglicans need to rebrand Jeebus a bit...

What Would Jesus Do, If He Was a Tea Party Wingnut ‘Christian’?

I notice capital punishment didn't deter Jesus.

[Coito ergo sum]

Crushing the stupid?

No, with due process and careful deliberation, as it should be.

Who said it shouldn't?

Court cases like that, however, don't decide anything finally anyway. It's just one Georgia court. There may still be an appeal, and any other court not subject to that court's direct precedent (which is basically every court in the country except the county and circuit court's directly underneath that appeals court) can decide the case the other way. It's just one case.

Nobody was suggesting that courts should not carefully deliberate their cases. That doesn't mean the case brought in this instance wasn't pure and utter bollocks. It was. It's a waste of time and public money on frivolity. IMHO.

[Seth]

Crushing the stupid?

No, with due process and careful deliberation, as it should be.

Who said it shouldn't?

Most everybody here who simply scoffed at the claims of the plaintiffs, by implication. Not one of you said "Well, it's a valid controversy that needs to be resolved by the courts."

Court cases like that, however, don't decide anything finally anyway. It's just one Georgia court. There may still be an appeal, and any other court not subject to that court's direct precedent (which is basically every court in the country except the county and circuit court's directly underneath that appeals court) can decide the case the other way. It's just one case.

Nobody said it would be a final decision. In fact I specifically said that it would at best merely start the ball rolling towards similar eligibility challenges in other states.

Nobody was suggesting that courts should not carefully deliberate their cases. That doesn't mean the case brought in this instance wasn't pure and utter bollocks. It was. It's a waste of time and public money on frivolity. IMHO.

Well, that's why you're not a judge I'm betting. Actual judges use actual legal procedure and provide actual due process without assuming that a case is "utter bollocks" without even reading the complaint or the supporting evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

Crushing the stupid?

No, with due process and careful deliberation, as it should be.

Who said it shouldn't?

Most everybody here who simply scoffed at the claims of the plaintiffs, by implication. Not one of you said "Well, it's a valid controversy that needs to be resolved by the courts."

So? That's most people's opinions here. Not everything submitted to a court has merit, or is even non-frivolous. I lump this case in with the frivolous. You don't - we are at an impasse.

Court cases like that, however, don't decide anything finally anyway. It's just one Georgia court. There may still be an appeal, and any other court not subject to that court's direct precedent (which is basically every court in the country except the county and circuit court's directly underneath that appeals court) can decide the case the other way. It's just one case.

Nobody said it would be a final decision. In fact I specifically said that it would at best merely start the ball rolling towards similar eligibility challenges in other states.

More garbage and more of an embarrassment to Obama opponents.

Nobody was suggesting that courts should not carefully deliberate their cases. That doesn't mean the case brought in this instance wasn't pure and utter bollocks. It was. It's a waste of time and public money on frivolity. IMHO.

Well, that's why you're not a judge I'm betting. Actual judges use actual legal procedure and provide actual due process without assuming that a case is "utter bollocks" without even reading the complaint or the supporting evidence.

Yes, I know exactly how courts work, Seth.

And, you know as well as I do that citizens are under no obligation to imbue every legal case with legal merit or to reserve opinion until the case is decided. Surely, even you,. Seth, have opined that someone's frivolous case was, in fact, frivolous?

[Seth]

Crushing the stupid?

No, with due process and careful deliberation, as it should be.

Who said it shouldn't?

Most everybody here who simply scoffed at the claims of the plaintiffs, by implication. Not one of you said "Well, it's a valid controversy that needs to be resolved by the courts."

So? That's most people's opinions here.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and almost all of them stink. My opinion is that most opinions here are like that, showing little evidence of actual rationality and plenty of evidence of knee-jerk leftist bigotry and indoctrination. The very mention of the idea that Obama might not be legally qualified to hold office under the Constitution is dismissed and scoffed at without the least bit of rational thought or consideration and with substantial support for simply ignoring the Constitution and its requirements because it's inconvenient to the Marxist/Socialist/Progressive agenda of destroying the foundations of our Republic and replacing them with socialist nonsense.

Worse yet, anyone who presumes to challenge Obama in ANY WAY is automatically labeled a racist even when the objection is political or philosophical and has nothing whatever to do with his race, and everything to do with his politics.

That's perhaps the most offensive and bigoted thing that Obots come up with on a regular basis, and it's right out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." It's despicable and disgusting and doesn't demonstrate even a shred of intellect or reason.

Not everything submitted to a court has merit, or is even non-frivolous. I lump this case in with the frivolous. You don't - we are at an impasse.

Not quite. It's still in play.

Court cases like that, however, don't decide anything finally anyway. It's just one Georgia court. There may still be an appeal, and any other court not subject to that court's direct precedent (which is basically every court in the country except the county and circuit court's directly underneath that appeals court) can decide the case the other way. It's just one case.

Nobody said it would be a final decision. In fact I specifically said that it would at best merely start the ball rolling towards similar eligibility challenges in other states.

More garbage and more of an embarrassment to Obama opponents.

Perhaps, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet I'm afraid.

Nobody was suggesting that courts should not carefully deliberate their cases. That doesn't mean the case brought in this instance wasn't pure and utter bollocks. It was. It's a waste of time and public money on frivolity. IMHO.

Well, that's why you're not a judge I'm betting. Actual judges use actual legal procedure and provide actual due process without assuming that a case is "utter bollocks" without even reading the complaint or the supporting evidence.

Yes, I know exactly how courts work, Seth.

Knowing how they work and being qualified to be a judge are two entirely different things I'm afraid. If it were up to me, the single most important factor in disqualifying ANYONE from being a judge at ANY level would be membership in any bar association on the planet, or even having graduated from law school.

The last people on earth qualified to judge others are lawyers.

And, you know as well as I do that citizens are under no obligation to imbue every legal case with legal merit or to reserve opinion until the case is decided. Surely, even you,. Seth, have opined that someone's frivolous case was, in fact, frivolous?

Indeed. But then again others are under no obligation to refrain from criticizing armchair lawyers and their pseudo-arguments (or lack thereof).

[aspire1670]

Indeed. But then again others are under no obligation to refrain from criticizing armchair lawyers and their pseudo-arguments (or lack thereof).

Good point, Seth. If you would only refrain from making pseudo-arguments when sitting in your armchair you wouldn't shoot yourself in the foot so often.

[apophenia]

You know Seth, I'd take your complaints about us offering our opinions on the matter and discussing the case a whole lot more seriously if you hadn't been the OP who brought this case to a discussion board and thrown it up with the obvious intent to solicit opinion and debate. Sometimes I truly wonder whether you in fact know whether you're coming or going.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know Seth, I'd take your complaints about us offering our opinions on the matter and discussing the case a whole lot more seriously if you hadn't been the OP who brought this case to a discussion board and thrown it up with the obvious intent to solicit opinion and debate. Sometimes I truly wonder whether you in fact know whether you're coming or going.

Considering his avowed stance of not holding feeling required to have the same opinion on anything on two consecutive posts there little reason to believe he cares about consistency at all.

[Seth]

Indeed. But then again others are under no obligation to refrain from criticizing armchair lawyers and their pseudo-arguments (or lack thereof).

Good point, Seth. If you would only refrain from making pseudo-arguments when sitting in your armchair you wouldn't shoot yourself in the foot so often.

Pot, kettle, black...

[Seth]

You know Seth, I'd take your complaints about us offering our opinions on the matter and discussing the case a whole lot more seriously if you hadn't been the OP who brought this case to a discussion board and thrown it up with the obvious intent to solicit opinion and debate. Sometimes I truly wonder whether you in fact know whether you're coming or going.

I come, I go, I am everywhere all at once. I see all, I know all, I am God. Which means that I'm just toying with you for My amusement. You're funny, little squishy bag of selfish genes. You are mine, and I shall call you "Squishy," and I shall allow you to exist a moment longer because I am a magnanimous and beneficent being.

I'm not complaining, I'm merely pointing out that one person's opinion is much like another's and that your opinions hold no greater weight than mine here or anywhere else, and that to presume that they do is merely irrational arrogance. We're all in the same boat in that regard, which makes carping about it somewhat less than relevant or interesting.

It's much more interesting and probative to discuss the merits of the arguments rather than the personalities behind the opinions, don't you think?

[Coito ergo sum]

[
Who said it shouldn't?

Most everybody here who simply scoffed at the claims of the plaintiffs, by implication. Not one of you said "Well, it's a valid controversy that needs to be resolved by the courts."

So? That's most people's opinions here.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and almost all of them stink. My opinion is that most opinions here are like that, showing little evidence of actual rationality and plenty of evidence of knee-jerk leftist bigotry and indoctrination.

Nobody has ever accused me of being a leftist, or a bigot. I think the case is frivolous on the law.

The very mention of the idea that Obama might not be legally qualified to hold office under the Constitution is dismissed and scoffed at without the least bit of rational thought or consideration and with substantial support for simply ignoring the Constitution and its requirements because it's inconvenient to the Marxist/Socialist/Progressive agenda of destroying the foundations of our Republic and replacing them with socialist nonsense.

I dismiss it because there isn't a shred of evidence to the assertion. Based on the undisputed evidence, he's apparently eligible.

Worse yet, anyone who presumes to challenge Obama in ANY WAY is automatically labeled a racist even when the objection is political or philosophical and has nothing whatever to do with his race, and everything to do with his politics.

I would never vote for Obama, and I would trade him for McCain any day of the week. I am not in the least an Obama supporter, and I oppose his economic policies, obamacare and much of his foreign dilly-dallying. Yet, I conclude that the qualification challenges against him are bullshit. It's partisan bullshit, plain and simple.

That's perhaps the most offensive and bigoted thing that Obots come up with on a regular basis, and it's right out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." It's despicable and disgusting and doesn't demonstrate even a shred of intellect or reason.

Well, whatever. Nobody would ever call me an Obama supporter, a radical, a Saul Alinsky devotee, a bigot, an Obot or anything else like that. I oppose the case on its merits, or lack thereof.

Not everything submitted to a court has merit, or is even non-frivolous. I lump this case in with the frivolous. You don't - we are at an impasse.

Not quite. It's still in play.

Every frivolous case is still in play until it isn't.

[amused]

Given the ferocious intensity of these nomination battles, it's a sure bet the Clintons (and others) would have surfaced any legitimate doubt about Obama's legitimacy to run a long time ago.

Rules For Radicals is a fun read, but some of the scenarios he suggested would backfire bigtime today. For instance, filling all the bathrooms at an airport so that departing passengers would be forced to crap in the aisles would trigger all sorts of over-reactions. It's obvious that Saul Alinsky was a true American and believed that the dream should be available to anyone willing to try.

[eXcommunicate]

Seth posts up another court challenge promoted by Orly Taintz and it fails. Shocker. And it takes all of 5 minutes to debunk Seth's assertion that "natural born citizen" requires that a person be born of two American parents.

http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-bo ... nstitution

[Seth]

Seth posts up another court challenge promoted by Orly Taintz and it fails. Shocker. And it takes all of 5 minutes to debunk Seth's assertion that "natural born citizen" requires that a person be born of two American parents.

http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-bo ... nstitution

Neither of your references constitutes an opinion of any court, and your reference to wikipedia is laughable as a legal source.

The controversy remains valid and eventually the Supreme Court is going to need to rule on it.

[Svartalf]

At any rate, Mitt Romney's dad wasn't a US citizen, and I haven't seen his Birth Cert, so I guess he's ineligible anyway and has no business running in the first place