Quote:
Originally Posted by Tichy
Chrispedersen: You're misunderstanding how the legal system works. It's not a matter a judge deciding what the American people have or don't have the right to know. It's a matter of who does or does not have the legal standing to bring a particular lawsuit in a particular venue. The guy who brought that suit didn't have the legal standing to bring it so it was dismissed.
|
I'm not misunderstanding in the least. This is exactly what I've represented from the start. The suit was thrown out for lack of standing... as I've said on at least two occassions.
I just disagree with it. As an american democrat, whose candidate *lost* he is an aggrieved party. As Obama took delegates in PA it seems a reasonable venue; under civil law one of the services of suit is the location where the incident occured.
As I said earlier - I believe every american should have standing.
Quote:
Now...there are plenty of people who could have challenged Obama on this, who did have the standing to bring such a suit. I guarantee you that if the McCain campaign thought for an instant there was anything to this at all they would have been all over it. In fact, that extremely canny and aggressive campaigner, Hilary Clinton, would have nailed his *** three ways to sunday on it before he even got out of the gate if there was even a vapors wisp of a snowballs chance in the devil's anus that there was a legitimate issue here.
No one but the fringiest whack job tried to bring the suit, because no one but the fringiest whack job thought there was anything to it at all.
|
The 'fringiest whack job' was formerly the deputy attorney general for the state of Pennsylvania. With more than 20 years in the successful practise of law. So I don't think you can actually characterize him as 'fringe whack job.' In fact a fringe whack job could be denied the ability to practise law under the 'good moral character' provision required in most states.
If you wish to argue that he is a political hack - thats another question.
However, the character of the person bringing suit, as well as their motiviations are entirely irrelevent to strength (or lack there of) of the case.
Look, multimember districts were ruled unconstitutional because they diluted minority voting rights - and they were challenged by a minority voter, because they *theoretically* disenfranchised minority candidates.
Bergs standing - as an allegedly actually disenfranchised voter is at least as strong.
I'm obviously Don Quixote here. Unless someone doesn't understand my points, or asks a question I won't respond further.
But these are my points:
1. Every american should have standing until a court or similarly designated agency has determined a candidates qualification.
2. No federal agency currently determines the qualifications for office, to the limit of my patience to investigate it.
3. I think some federal agency SHOULD determine qualifications. Just as some state agency should determine state qualifications (And in fact they do in some states). Currently their respective parties determine it, and I don't believe this honor system which may have worked 200 years ago, is appropriate now; which leads to
3b. Conversely, I believe it is incumbent upon every political candidate to affirmatively prove that he meets the qualification for the office sought.
4. I think as a political decision it is curious that obama sought to have the case dismissed on the basis of standing, rather than putting the issue to rest by providing a birth certificate.
5. I think it was a mistake of him to do so.
6. You are quite correct. I think that *if* there was any significant likelihood that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, that Hillary would have sued personally. (As a caveat, according to Berg, he only discovered the information by sending an investigator to Kenya.) But to me it is more a question 1. I think americans should have standing and 3b that every candidate needs to validate that he in fact does qualify.