Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: TGRR]
    #9671051 -

TGRR said:
johnm214 said:
No, again I didn't say that.

I did say that a clerk is not the court and that therefore if the clerk refuses to file or dismisses a lawsuit that your first amendment rights have been violated.  It means you've never presented your case to the court at all.



If the clerk is directed by the judiciary to eliminate suits already decided upon, and that clerk does so within the constraints issued by the judge in question, where is the problem?

The alternative, of course, is to have each judge spend 100 hours/week examining 30-40 bogus filings.



There isn't a problem, but what is the relevance? 

Are you now claiming that the various lawsuits were subject to res judicata?  If so I'd like to hear why.

I took issue with your proposition that clerks should refuse to file or should decide cases.  What does that have to do with the specific merits of whatever cases you seem to be referring to without citing?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9671079 -

johnm214 said:
TGRR said:
johnm214 said:
No, again I didn't say that.

I did say that a clerk is not the court and that therefore if the clerk refuses to file or dismisses a lawsuit that your first amendment rights have been violated.  It means you've never presented your case to the court at all.



If the clerk is directed by the judiciary to eliminate suits already decided upon, and that clerk does so within the constraints issued by the judge in question, where is the problem?

The alternative, of course, is to have each judge spend 100 hours/week examining 30-40 bogus filings.



There isn't a problem, but what is the relevance? 

Are you now claiming that the various lawsuits were subject to res judicata?  If so I'd like to hear why.

I took issue with your proposition that clerks should refuse to file or should decide cases.  What does that have to do with the specific merits of whatever cases you seem to be referring to without citing?


Very simple question:  Should judges review each and every case brought before them, even if the case in question is identical in every particular with a case already decided


--------------------
What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Official Mr Shoebat lackey.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: TGRR]
    #9671710 -

Yes, how would they possibly know that the case is identical? Besides the constitution provides for a right to sue in court and that's the end of the discussion. 

Its not like there aren't a plethora of remedies available to deal with bad faith litigation or improper claims- though I'm not sure what you're referring to in identical cases.  Just cuz a case is the same as another doesn't mean its barred or not justiciable.  Or are you only referring to cases which would be barred by res judicata anyways and thus properly subject the plaintiff to contempt or rule 11 sanctions anyways?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9672093 -

johnm214 said:
Yes, how would they possibly know that the case is identical? Besides the constitution provides for a right to sue in court and that's the end of the discussion. 



1.  Because they're paid to read through the decisions and new suits?

2.  So you DO approve of paralyzing the entire judiciary, just so you can throw a tantrum over losing an election?  Also, the constitution does not allow malicious prosecution.


So basically, if you had your way, no candidate would every take office, anywhere.


--------------------
What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Official Mr Shoebat lackey.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9673816 -

TGRR's link said that:

"the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there."

If you don't trust Hawaii's director of Health, then why would you trust a birth certificate?  Or any piece of evidence provided thereafter?  :shrug:

"So basically, if you had your way, no candidate would every take office, anywhere." - TGRR


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #9673842 -

I had not read that.

If that's true, I would think that settles it.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: TGRR]
    #9673925 -

TGRR said:
johnm214 said:
Yes, how would they possibly know that the case is identical? Besides the constitution provides for a right to sue in court and that's the end of the discussion. 



1.  Because they're paid to read through the decisions and new suits?



You asked the following:
TGRR said:
Very simple question:  Should judges review each and every case brought before them, even if the case in question is identical in every particular with a case already decided


I said as such in the portion quoted above.  You now reply in the above.

If your going to ask a question premised upon certain circumstances it does no good to change them after the question is answered.  Whatever you originally intended to ask, given you now reply that you propose they be reviewed rather than thrown out by the clerk, as I took issue with, I suppose we are in agreement. 

Quote:
2.  So you DO approve of paralyzing the entire judiciary, just so you can throw a tantrum over losing an election?  Also, the constitution does not allow malicious prosecution.


So basically, if you had your way, no candidate would every take office, anywhere.


I thought we agreed now that you changed your premises?  What is the point of disagreement now?  I don't recall being asked if I wanted to paralyze the entire judiciary, but given I'm aware of two lawsuits in the entire US District Court system regarding obama's eligiblity, I'm presuming you're referring to something else, no?


I'm further unsure why you charecterize me as throwing a tantrum or "loosing an election" but since you've not shown the relevance to anything discussed here I'll preume its more straw men arguments untill you demonstrate otherwise.

Given that I agree with the prevailing view of the first amendment and due process rights and that candidates do indeed take office, I guess your conclusion "

So basically, if you had your way, no candidate would every take office, anywhere."

is another straw man, no?  Or if that was a legitimate question the answer is no, if I had my way I would not stop every candidate everywhere from taking office.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #9673993 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
TGRR's link said that:

"the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there."

If you don't trust Hawaii's director of Health, then why would you trust a birth certificate?  Or any piece of evidence provided thereafter?  :shrug:

"So basically, if you had your way, no candidate would every take office, anywhere." - TGRR



Why are you directing this to me?  Your premise that I distrust the Hawaiian health person is faulty and I don't know what relevance the refrence to birth certificates has at all, nor the "other evidence" refrence.

If you're quote of TGRR"s conclusion is an adoption of the same I'll ask you the same questions:

What does that have to do with anything I've said?  Given that my view of the first amendment and due process rights is the same as that currrently prevailing, what is the basis for your conclusion of the effects of my position given that obama did take office and that this standard has remained essentially unchanged for many decades now without the consequences you predict?

And you too apparently think two lawsuits is enough to stop a president from taking office  as well as every "candidate... everywhere"?  Or was there some other grave effect of obeying the first amendment you invoke but have not identified?  If so lets hear it.


I suppose you also are fine with your rights to speak or be free from compelled religion being removed on whatever unarticulated standard you're adopting here?  Are you?  What is the standard your advancing to determine when we can ignore the constitution?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #9674024 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
TGRR's link said that:

"the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there."

If you don't trust Hawaii's director of Health, then why would you trust a birth certificate?  Or any piece of evidence provided thereafter?  :shrug:

"So basically, if you had your way, no candidate would every take office, anywhere." - TGRR


Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I have this paralyzing suspicion that the next time one of their candidates gets elected, suddenly any objections will suddenly be tinfoil hat material (as they should be catagorized now).


--------------------
What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Official Mr Shoebat lackey.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9674261 -

johnm214 said:
Why are you directing this to me?  Your premise that I distrust the Hawaiian health person is faulty and I don't know what relevance the refrence to birth certificates has at all, nor the "other evidence" refrence.


If my premise if faulty, then you're saying you DO trust Hawaii's Director of Health.  Which means there's no reason to believe the constitution is being violated.  So I guess I don't understand your argument.  :shrug:

Quote:
If you're quote of TGRR"s conclusion is an adoption of the same I'll ask you the same questions:

What does that have to do with anything I've said?  Given that my view of the first amendment and due process rights is the same as that currrently prevailing, what is the basis for your conclusion of the effects of my position given that obama did take office and that this standard has remained essentially unchanged for many decades now without the consequences you predict?


I agree with your premise that Obama MUST be a natural born citizen.  Since it's been shown that he is, how many lawsuits until all suspicious Republicans are satisfied?  Can't anyone claim they don't believe the evidence?

The consequences I predict haven't happened because no one is willing to entertain conspiracy theory lawsuits.  With Obama haters galore out there, the lawsuits could go on and on...  are you sure there would only be two?

Quote:
And you too apparently think two lawsuits is enough to stop a president from taking office  as well as every "candidate... everywhere"?  Or was there some other grave effect of obeying the first amendment you invoke but have not identified?  If so lets hear it.


Again, I guess I don't quite understand where you're coming from.  If you trust the Hawaii Director of Health, what's the issue again?

Quote:
I suppose you also are fine with your rights to speak or be free from compelled religion being removed on whatever unarticulated standard you're adopting here?  Are you?  What is the standard your advancing to determine when we can ignore the constitution?


If he's not a US citizen, then I agree he has no right to be President.  But what's the burden of proof?  The Constitution gives no specific requirements.  I think the folks calling this into question are mainly the folks that believe Obama is a arab/muslim/communist/ etc.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9674316 -

Ok, I read all your posts again, and I might know where you were trying to go.  I believe you were saying that the court doesn't care if Obama is a citizen.  On the contrary, I believe they simply gave a reason why they wouldn't take the case.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #9674357 -

You responded to a discussion I had with TGRR who said that clerks should dismiss lawsuits.  I said that's a violation of the first amendment.  He asked if a judge should be required to review the suits if they were the same as other lawsuits, and I said yes as you have the right to suit and the judge wouldn't know if it was the same untill he read it.  TGRR then stated the judge would know the lawsuit was the same cuz he would read it which changed the premise upon which he was asking me to respond and took back his previous contentions.  It also made the question he posed to me pointless.  He asked essentially:  "Should judges have to read lawsuits that they will read?"  Kind of a pointless question, but whatever.

You then seemed to presume a bunch of things I didn't state which is why I asked wtf you were going on about.

The issue was not whether obama was eligible, the issue was whether its right to dismiss lawsuits without the court's evaluation and action.  Previously I've also stated I was against the view that a person suffers no injury when their president or party's candidate for president is constitutionaly inelgible- though this wasn't the discussion to which you replied.  TGRR has stated the courts have ruled obama eligible but hasn't been able to back that up other than a newstory referencing the actions referred to (dismiss as no injury in fact from ineligible president).




I have no reason to mistrust the Hawaiin health person nor to believe Obama is ineligible.  The standard of proof would be either a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence he's not eligible (for a suit against himi- I think he should have  to prove he is eligible publically as should all constitutional officer holders, but that's besides the point).


Quote:
I agree with your premise that Obama MUST be a natural born citizen.  Since it's been shown that he is, how many lawsuits until all suspicious Republicans are satisfied?  Can't anyone claim they don't believe the evidence?

The consequences I predict haven't happened because no one is willing to entertain conspiracy theory lawsuits.  With Obama haters galore out there, the lawsuits could go on and on...  are you sure there would only be two?



This isn't a difficult problem.  How many lawsuits when you sell a defective product? A lot more than this.  A simple food poisoning case in a single restraunt gets more lawsuits with more varied issues.  The problems you and TGRR refer to haven't happened because their is no reason for them to happen.  This is hardly unique and hardly burdensome.  How many asbestos lawsuits exist?  Take a look at the number and the complexity and then tell me lawsuits on this issue are burdensome.  You only need one lawsuit to decide the issue since everyone in the country suffers the same issue and has the same standing basically.  At most there'd be two lawsuits (or one suit with two consolidated plaintiffs): one for those alleging injury from his holding office and one for those democrats who want to vote for another democratic candidate in the general.

Stay all cases untill decided, then dismiss on res judicata grounds all depending on the same legal issues and with no new evidence (if dismissed on that ground).

You guys act like this is a unique problem when its a very simple one.  Why the hell would you need to have a trial for every claim when they are all the same?  With respect I think you guys are imagining a ridiculous situation that has never been the norm with any other case and wouldn't be teh case with this one even if there were more than the two suits I know of in US courts.


I'm not a republican, I didn't vote for McCain, and it was a democrat who brought the action I referenced earlier.  Obviously the standard is not when republicans are satisfied but when the law is complied with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #9674370 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Ok, I read all your posts again, and I might know where you were trying to go.  I believe you were saying that the court doesn't care if Obama is a citizen.  On the contrary, I believe they simply gave a reason why they wouldn't take the case.



Yes, they didn't pass on the issue contrary to TGRR's claim.  What do you mean they don't care if he's a citezin?  That's the same as dismissing the case since you presume the allegations true when ruling on motions to dismiss.


The court said Obama being inelgible wouldn't injure a citezin enough to create an "actual case or contreversy" and thus the court had no jurisdiction.


If you tell a debt collector not to call you after 5pm and they do you've suffered a greater injury, and a sufficient injury to sue in US District Court- but not if your president is barred by the constitution of the united states.  That's what I disagree wtih.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9674507 -

Thanks for the clarification.  So you believe a clerk determined that this shouldn't go to court?  If so, I'd appreciate a link that says this was the case.

Regardless, according to this article (a very good article in my opinion), only 1 in 14 cases like this ever go to court.  You yourself stated you believe Hawaii's Director of Health was not lying about Obama's birth certificate, so this case would just be a waste of taxpayer time and money, right?  Read the article if you have a few minutes - it even contains a link showing Obama's birth certificate.


Edit - changed "one in 12" to "1 in 14" after doing the math.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (01/26/09 01:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #9674718 -

.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9674793 -

johnm214 said:
The court said Obama being inelgible wouldn't injure a citezin enough to create an "actual case or contreversy" and thus the court had no jurisdiction.


If you tell a debt collector not to call you after 5pm and they do you've suffered a greater injury, and a sufficient injury to sue in US District Court- but not if your president is barred by the constitution of the united states.  That's what I disagree wtih.


Not quite. The court said that the plaintiff had no particular injury distinct from that suffered by any other citizen, therefore his case is not suitable for that court. But I can see why you would disagree with that. It means that you cannot sue the government for violating the constitution unless you personally have been injured more than anyone else. That seems like a pretty big loophole.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: zouden]
    #9677007 -

Falcon, No I don't think a clerk dismissed anything.  That other guy said they should which started a bunch of stupid discussion which resulted in him saying that judges shouldn't read these complaints and then saying they would- which was the only thing I wanted anyways.

It was a pointless waste of time- was just saying that the first amendment requires a court to get your complaint and that TGRR guy finally agreed with that after a bit of confusion (though he still claims to disagree with me- I'm just not sure what on).

I'm discussing the principle, not the merits. 

Zouden, do you have a citation or quote from the opinion to that effect?  That's not my understanding.  I cited the opinion previously, and I'm not aware of any requirement that a plaintiff be injured particularly wiht respect to others- only that the injury be sufficient to give an "actual case or controversy" as required in Article III.  I think what you're referring to is some stupid discussion by the court that the injury must reach some threshold with respect to the particular plaintiff and that it hasn't.


As explained to Falcon, I don't think these suits would suceed and I don't think Obama is ineligible.  I do think if your president is you should be able to sue and you've been injured just as much as if a cop violates your fourth amendment rights.

Basically the courts just use that "case or controversy" portion of Article III to dismiss these types of cases and its wrong.  How am I injured when I get called after 9PM by a debt collector but not when my president violates the constitution and illegaly serves? (which to TGRR's confusion is what the opinion was presmised on since it was on a motion to dismiss).


Hope that clears up my position.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9677040 -

Oh and for those who presume anyone who raises this issue must be against obama for some reason (can't grasp abstract notions like fairness perhpas- like giving a jury trial to the guy you 'know' is guilty?) (not referring to falcon I know he was confused by what was silliness):


The one of the most prominent of these suits was levied against McCain, with the same results, as well and I want the same scrutiny.  I think both are eligible, but if they weren't and admited it the court would still be powerless under these decisions.


Not cool and it has nothing to do with what one poster erroneously classified as "me throwing a fit cuz McCain lost" when I didn't vote for McCain and McCain was sued in the same manner. 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: johnm214]
    #9677739 -

johnm214 said:
Zouden, do you have a citation or quote from the opinion to that effect?  That's not my understanding.  I cited the opinion previously, and I'm not aware of any requirement that a plaintiff be injured particularly wiht respect to others- only that the injury be sufficient to give an "actual case or controversy" as required in Article III.  I think what you're referring to is some stupid discussion by the court that the injury must reach some threshold with respect to the particular plaintiff and that it hasn't.


My knowledge of this case is entirely based on the article that TGRR posted.
Quote:
In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."



--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Flubbing The Oath [Re: zouden]
    #9678028 -

Ok, well I think my explanation for that language is correct, but anyways the news article obviously isn't the opinion.  I posted the opinion previously if you are interested.


The third article only requires a case or controversy.  It doesn't require particularized harm greater than others' injury.  The court discussed how the harm was generalized and didn't particularly affect the plaintiff but that was to reach to point that the plaintiff didn't suffer adequate harm to have a controversy/case against obama rather than to conclude a plaintiff that does suffer sufficient harm has no standing when others have also suffered that harm. 

The point was that nobody suffered adequate harm rather than he must suffer more than others.  It also leads into the decisions that have stated the harm to a candidate's committee is sufficient, but that's just to distinguish the standing of the candidate himself from the general populace and doesn't establish that if the injury is sufficient as to every person but effects all equally that nobody had standing.  Maybe its semantics, and I obviously don't endorse the current view of article III standing, but that's my reasoning anyways for disagreeing that the plaintiff must have harm more than other folks, and I think its accurate.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Obama orders release of 4 Torture Memos
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 pothead_bob 8,943 141 05/03/09 10:08 AM
by zappaisgod
* Republican response to Obama on Medical Marijuana... WTF? johnm214 2,024 17 05/18/08 05:58 PM
by fivepointer
* Obama, Ayers, and the Annenberg Challenge Cover-Up lonestar2004 813 2 08/22/08 05:10 PM
by zappaisgod
* Obama worked with terrorist
( 1 2 3 all )		 bodynotdead 4,681 54 02/29/08 03:42 AM
by fireworks_god
* What happened to the hippocratic oath?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Edame 4,874 46 05/11/04 08:15 PM
by germin8tionn8ion
* Obama's Binkie - the teleprompter.
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Phred 4,905 74 03/20/09 08:46 PM
by Phred
* NYTIMES ..king george accuses obama of appeasing hitler...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Annapurna1 4,747 42 05/23/08 12:23 AM
by afoaf
* First death of Obama Administration?
( 1 2 all )		 Luddite 2,736 34 01/20/09 09:01 PM
by TGRR

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,297 topic views. 1 members, 10 guests and 30 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.