Orly Taitz lose -- again -- to an empty table

United States
February 6, 2012 3:03pm CST
It turns out that the birther case is so utterly devoid of merit that even when President Obama doesn't show up the judge rules against them. Usually, if you don't show up there's a default judgement against you. But the birthers requested a hearing on the merits, and they got one. They should have stuck with the default. http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012 Some choice quotes: The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. That's purely on the merits of Plaintiff's claims, without a single objection or cross examination from the Defense. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the timeof his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree. The "Wong Kim Ark" Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decisionand concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. That's what they call in obscure latin legalese a "precedent." Lost to an empty desk. Let us hear no more about this utterly bankrupt argument.
2 responses
@crossbones27 (21176)
• Redlands, California
6 Feb 12
I am glad you put "utterly bankrupt argument," because all it did was waste a lot of peoples time and taxpayer dollars. When are people going learn all this stuff does is make our country look petty, bigoted, and just straight ignorant. So now people have no argument, nor did they ever have a legitimate argument on this issue. Now they are just going to make up other crap. Like it must be nice to be above the law and not have to show up to court. You all seem to forget that the President has white house council. I am sure the President consulted with the white house lawyers to make sure he was in his legal rights not to show up for court on that nonsense issue. What is wrong with some of these people on the far right? The far right has no real solutions to big problems, and you can't beat Obama on the big issues. So instead you are going to make up nonsense that they know is false, because they can't beat him any other way. Sorry Donald Trump and all of your far right lackeys, THE JOKE IS ON YOU!!
1 person likes this
• United States
7 Feb 12
Your right, they complain about how Obama is bankrupting the country, and now they expect the president to show up in courts, I'm sure that's cheap or practical. Its not about being above the law, its about not being abused by the law. Hey guys let's troll the president by trying to make him show up in court all the time, haha. This is as crazy as if you expected GW to show up for every lefty who decides to sue him because they don't have a job since he ended his 2nd term with a big recession.
• Redlands, California
7 Feb 12
That is a excellent way of putting it. I never even thought about "not being abused by the law." If the President is so above the law, then why was this nonsense even allowed in court? The far right are always going on about the debt this, and the debt that, but they have no problem wasting our money on this BS.
@peavey (16866)
• United States
6 Feb 12
I think Ted said it all. No one is above the law - or at least, is supposed to be. Who does he think he is?
@peavey (16866)
• United States
6 Feb 12
And other presidents have not found it beneath them to appear whenever they have been called.
• United States
7 Feb 12
So there is absolutely no legal precedent, no judge's ruling on whether he had to appear. In that case, a Judge can issue a subpoena and based on your statement would have to agree to appear. The laws made for Congress do not necessarily apply to the President.