it was an epoch-defining case in the making ...
flashback: april 5
flashback: july 3
two months after finally getting their day in court, dwi-attorney-turned-constitutional-scholar mario appuzzo and his clients, retired navyman charles kerchner and former marine donald nelsen finally got their answer from the court to their demand that the kenyan usurper prove his fitness to command:
the court acknowledges plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
admittedly, it was not quite the answer they were waiting for.
once again, the birthers were sent packing for failing to demonstrate standing — that is, the right to sue:
plaintiffs allege that they have been injured because defendants have not adequately established that the president is truly a “natural born citizen” and because, according to plaintiffs, president obama is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore an illegitimate president. these alleged harms apply equally to all united states residents. in fact, plaintiffs’ complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to “the people." as explained above, the supreme court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under article III.
sounds like the plaintiffs argued themselves out of their own case ...
finally, plaintiffs point to the risk that mr. kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. naval reserves by executive order of the president or an act of congress in an extreme national emergency. under these circumstances, mr. kerchner “would need to know whether the president and commander in chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate president and commander in chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.” ... while the court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. the hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing.
the courthouse door once again slammed in their faces, it's time to once again cue the chorus:
it appears that no Citizen in America has legal standing in this case. what a CROCK of Fecal matter (this situation, not the president. that’s a whole differant “can of worms.”)
another chicken sh*t reading of the law.
it seems only the pro-0bama people have standing in the courts. are we witnessing the rise of the 4th reich?
more like the rise of the cominterm in america.
if you read the federal rules of civil procedure, it becomes clear that we don’t have standing. there is no unique injury that is particularized and concrete to one plaintiff. every voter suffers the same injury from an ineligible POTUS. and there is no remedy that the court can grant. the court can’t remove a sitting president.
that doesn’t mean obama is eligible. it just means, we can’t pursue this method of removing him. we’ll have to find another way.
uh oh ... who let debbie downer into our private pity party?
what a poseur you are! you don't want your obamessiah removed and take joy when each of these suits is dismissed on the same specious grounds that no one has standing. whom you pinged reveals where your allegiance is festering.
hey, let's look on the bright side, folks: orly still has four business days left to oust the usurper!
edit: corrected plaintiff's name ("nelsen", not "nelson")