By Ted Belman
I watched the oral arguments before the C of A on the matter of standing in the matter of eligibility of Obama.
Here’s my impression.
1) The Judges gave the matter a fair hearing keeping in mind that they have full written briefs before them. The oral arguments is an opportunity to press their questions.
2) The plaintiffs in the cases under appeal include ordinary citizens, military men and a Presidential candidate in the last election.
3) The judges were concered about timing. What is the situation before the elections, between election and inauguration and after inauguration. Different issues apply to each.
4) Could the Congress handle this matter through impeachment after election. Yes Congress could impeach but only the Courts could interpret the law.
5) What is the injury to the plaintiffs? Lakin lost his pension. The Candidate was denied a level playing field. I thought why doesn’t a citizen have standing to question before the courts the eligibility of a candidate for president.
6) the SSN issue is in the Court briefs. So I don’t think it can easily be dismissed
7) They also wanted to know what relief the plaintiff was asking for.
So the Court has to decide if any Plaintifs qualify to bring the suit. This depends on when it was brought and who if anyone has been injured. Taitz also raised the issue that the lower court was biased.
Not all are Democratic appointees on the 9th Circuit. Is Kosinski still the Chief Judge? He’s no democrat. A Reaganite.
He’s one of the main reasons there’s no integrity and accountability in the federal government. He all but killed whistleblower protection when he served as the Special Counsel in the early ’80’s. That’s related to the stingy view of standing which I think was a product of conservative jurisprudence.
They can argue this all the want. It ain’t goin’ anywhere. Nobody is going to get Barama out on his eligibility. That issue is dead. No one of any importance in Congress, especially not the leadership, will ever touch the issue.
I’m not an attorney, so I don’t understand all the legal wrangling that seem to go on with the concept of “standing”. It makes absolutely NO sense to me to say that any American citizen doesn’t have standing to see that the rules of the constitution were followed in the election of the President. This is not a beauty contest. The winner will wield great power in determining the direction that the country travels, and as such, every AMerican has a vested interest to see to it that we don’t have an “outsider” making these determinations. If thats not “standing”, then the law is screwed up.
Thanks Bill. I also thought Kreeps did poorly. I can’t understand why the public doesn’t have an interest in whether the Constitution is being followed. Certainly Lakin who lost his pension might. But does a soldier have any right to refuse orders without proof that his Commander in Chief was constitutionally eligible. I doubt it.
I can’t imagine them granting the appeal but a 2 to 1 decision would be electrifying.
looks like Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce. The lawyers DO seem to be doing well. Too bad for America, though, huh?
Taitz was good and presented enough arguments to have the court rule in favor of overturning the lower courts decision. That said the 9th cir court has a reputation of some weird decisions and being the most liberal of all Federal courts of appeal, They are all democratic appointees.
They will I think uphold the lower courts decision.
Years ago I sued an agency of the State of Israel and the supreme court heard the case. I appeared before The president of the SC Justice shamgar. I lost due to late filling even though the court agreed with my complaint. I lost on a technicality. My Lawyer at the time never told me that I was time limited to appeal my grievance against the State. Shamgar suggested I sue the Lawyer who failed to inform me of the time limit I had to file a civil suit against the state. Technically he was right, but In those days in Israel lawyers never sued other Lawyers and as far as i know they still don’t. Shamgar was being cute. He was one of our better Judges, so one might imagine what the others are like.
If one is really seeking fairness and justice don’t look to the courts either in America or Israel.
Lawyers seem to do well though.
My take on this is somewhat different.
Though the issue of standing appeared uppermost in the court’s mind, when the judges raised it with the 1st lawyer, that lawyer seemed to almost have been taken by surprise and he fumbled and stumbled at first. Since he later said he had 35 years experience in constitutional law, I found his arguments rather weak on the issue of standing as well as what specific injury his clients suffered that would give rise to a remedy.
The 2nd lawyer, appears to have met the standing issue as regards Amb. Keyes, but that standing was in question depending on whether suit was filed before or after the election results that declared Obama the winner. She also vigorously argued judicial malfeasance and bias. Counsel for the USDOJ did not address any of those issues, save to deny there was any wrongdoing on his department’s actions. Perhaps he addressed those issues specifically in his brief. Interestingly the court did not raise any questions of the USDOJ regarding the substance of Plaintiff counsel’s arguments. Interesting.
What I did find difficult to understand is the court’s focus on standing and that such standing depended on whether the Plaintiff’s filed suit before the election and if only after, it appears standing would be lost.
What is perplexing is if one likens this to a case in fraud where the Plaintiff only finds out they have been defrauded afterwards and then brings suit. Of course the Plaintiff would have suffered injury at the time of the fraud, even though it was only later discovered.
How then would that be different than the election of a President who concealed those facts that would disqualify them from even running for the Presidency, let alone being elected.
Finally, the court seemed to suggest that ordinary citizens do not have the right to file suit to challenge the elegibility of a standing President to be President and only the Congress or Senate does.
If that is the case, then politics does enter into the situation and may indeed subvert justice where the Presdential candidate and party that lost the election has some political reasons not to challenge the elected President’s eligibility. That would be the case here where it seems the Republicans would fear a backlash by the electorate against them, even with proof positive which backlash could included charges of racism, sour grapes and accusations belittling and mocking them.
So what then is an ordinary citizen to do if they are in possession of evidence that demonstrates the sitting President has pulled one over on the electorate by concealing that they never were eligible to run, let alone be elected President.
While an ordinary citizen might not be able to claim tangible damages justifying a remedy sought, is it not an intangible damage that any citizen suffers if it is later discovered that their President was not constitutionally eligible to be President?
Hopefully one of our contributors has some expertise in the field of American constitutional law who can take a moment to clarify these matters for us.