Quote:
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen
....shall be eligible to the office of President..."
|
Berg's poorly planned attempts have been largely a waste of time, because the federal courts have ruled 4 out of 4 times that a citizen does not have standing to bring such a suit.
Now, in terms of wrong or right, this positively sucks. It means a citizen has no right to insist the person elected to a job serving him be qualified. But, it is the law. The job of qualifying candidates is given to Congress, along with the authority to delegate the job.
Berg continually insisting his facts are correct was meaningless. T'werent his job to point it out.
Next, we come to another sense of the term
"compelling reason". It is standard fare in federal court, that although a plaintiff is found to lack standing, the judge can order the facts of the case to be presented anyway, where the judge determines that the there is a
"compelling reason" to hear them, where he suspects they have merit.
This is where we come to the importance of the Dec 1 Supreme Court review of the matter. They can decide that such "compelling reason" exists, hand the matter back to the lower courts and order said federal courts to hear the evidence. Remember that to this point,
no court has heard the
facts of the case. The entire argument has been over whether or not Berg had standing to file the suit.
The facts of the case aren't in the S. Court's department. They are a court on process, and law, not facts.
If that happens, and no I don't know, but I suspect, Mr. Obama is sunk. Mind you I am basing this on human nature, and little else; but...
who goes through a year-long court battle to
prevent the facts of a case from being heard, when they are positive that such a hearing will prove the case groundless?
Re. the opinion Obama was "the best candidate we
were offered". The way it's p[ut makes me think of baby chicks in a nest, beaks open, waiting for whatever is dropped in their mouth,
"knowing" there isn't anything else. What happened to insisting on a genuine choice? What happened to the concept of being the owners of our own freedom, and choice?
Fact is, the coice of Obama vs. McCain was exactly the same as getting to choose whether your daily feeding of horsecrap was vanilla, or strawberry. No more. T'was clear to anyone who did research beyond their hopes, which were never either candidates concern.
Finally:
Change! Gosh, it sounds important. But stepping deeper in the same hole is "change". If the idea is change for the better, wouldn't it have a better standing if it was based upon a different beginning? Like the truth?