Obama citizenship suit tossed

Thankyou for this information

They have been beating this dead horse around here for awhile in a propaganda style fashion to just keep repeating it and repeating it.

I hope this puts and end to the silliness and concentrate on the issues.

 

Somehow I think this will not be enough for some folks .

I am glad to see this judge, a Clinton appointee, had some sense in his head.

If I were this judge Berg would be in jail for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

 

Isn't the bigger problem here that the judge ruled that Berg did not have standing to bring the suit? If a voter does not have standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of a man who is asking for his vote, who does?

To me, we should all be very concerned about that. Look at the bigger picture, folks.

 

You are correct. The judge's ruling was solely about who brought the lawsuit and not about the validity of the claims being made by the lawsuit.

The judge said that Berg did not have standing, as an individual voter, to bring the lawsuit before the court. According to the article:

 

He will. :thumbs:

 

The judge threw it out because there was no legal leg to stand on. I expect the Court of Appeals refuse to hear the case, effectively throwing it out also. Berg can waste his time and money, but it will go nowhere. There should be a law that forces people who bring such silly cases to pay the court costs.

 

Here is the actual ruling.

I tried to read the section on why Berg didn't have standing to sue. It didn't make much sense to me. But the relevant quote seems to be

Apparently this same argument was used to throw out a similar case titled Hollander and Jones against McCain about his birth in the Panama Canal as well as a another case titled Jones against Bush and Cheney about being inhabitants of Texas.

 

Dragon,

I think that is a very tenuous position. What is "injury-in-fact"? And in a case like this, who could demonstrate it? It would be interesting to know who the judge thinks would have legal standing for this case.

It appears that he is essentially saying, "Unless something really bad is done, you can't investigate a person's constitutional qualifications."

As for the case itself, I don't really care. My guess is that if there were legs to this it would have come out by now, so I imagine there isn't. But it bothers me that a citizen who is asked to vote for a particular person doesn't have standing to ensure his qualifications for office.

What if this was his age? What if he was possibly 33? Who would have standing to sue?

 

I got the impression it was thrown out because he was trying to sue on behalf of all voters about something that was too general for him to show that it was an actual injury shared by all voters.

Maybe I'm wrong but it would be nice if I could get an opinion of a lawyer.

 

I still think it is a bad ruling, as I understand it. What would it take to have standing?

Of course not. It didn't work back then. I think McCain was actually born in a US territory which the Panama Canal zone was, and his dad was military.