I just went into PACER, to pull up the Court's Order, and for some reason, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's PACER web site is down...I did a "work-around"; and managed to pull up the Docket Report, (none of the .pdf/html links which allow one to pull up the actual pleadings and documents are contained within the this case's "Docket Page") and the Docket Report (Page) has not been updated since yesterday morning when I looked I pulled it up.
If in fact, this Order that D.B. is referencing is correct, then the Court took the easy way out, and is pawning it off to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which may opt to rule on whatever Mr. Berg can get before them, next week. I have seen the Third Circuit move expediantly in the past. I plan on calliing Mr. Berg on Monday, this is a joke, and although I had envisioned the Court attempting such a ruling, (to avoid addressing the issues) the Court's ruling is typical, chicken shit. I have met very few Federal District Court Judges, who didn't think that their personal "standing" was somewhere between God and Jesus Christ. I don't know this Federal Court Judge, but I would bet money that he is an asshole, and the sad thing, is that there is no mechanism, short of a Congressional impeachment, to remove him from the Bench. On Oct 25, 11:36 am, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Q] - Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's > constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States > had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the > Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the > Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. > -http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-... > > "Standing" not established. At the moment no one shall have standing > in the eyes of the court: > > Judge Surrick: "If, through the political process, Congress determines > that citizens, voters, or party members should police the > Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is > free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. > Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of > challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint." > > In addition, Surrick wasn't too crazy about the nature of the evidence > presented by Berg. > > Surrick's decision wasn't unexpected. Berg says he will appeal. It's > an uphill fight, especially given the Supreme Court's recent ruling > not to confer "standing" in the case against the Ohio Sec. of State. > > Therefore, certain mandates of the Constitution are more conceptual > than enforceable. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
