I haven't yet read the Supreme's decision from Ohio, but rest assured, I will here before the day is over....All I am doing is wasting time today, battling Moonbattery on the web.....
On Oct 25, 2:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see the story also ran in > Philly:http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_l... > > Based on the decision, there's no mechanism to confer standing on > citizens in this matter. As presently constituted, no person or entity > shall be granted standing - other than Congress acting as a body, > which is unlikely to rush into the breach. > > This "standing" issue is also consistent with the recent ruling handed > down by the Supreme Court in the suit against Ohio's Sec. of State: > Plaintiff lacked standing. > > In practical terms, we are citizen/voters without a country - given > that Constitutional mandates are more conceptual than enforceable. > > The founders (Adams) knew exactly what they were doing when they > established the two party, electoral college. > > On Oct 25, 1:13 pm, KeithInTampa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
