Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

"Natural Born Citizen"Follow

#102 Aug 27 2013 at 11:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Haha, yeah you're right. I totally didn't break it down step by step or anything. Got me there!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Aug 27 2013 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I just went through the process in place and why the judges' rulings were appropriate.


No you didn't. You just said "this is the way the judges ruled, so they must be right". Don't you have your own opinion on anything?


He outlined the rules and regulations that are in place per the constitution, then laid out why the judges' rulings follow those rules and regulations, and then HAPPENED to agree with that ruling.

ITT: Gbaji missing the point in his continued efforts to troll the Asylum

EDIT: The mysterious N

Edited, Aug 27th 2013 10:43pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#104 Aug 28 2013 at 6:01 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,477 posts
No you didn't. You just said "this is the way the judges ruled, so they must be right".

As previously discussed, repeatedly and at length, "the way the judges ruled" defines the rules of procedure so it's *literally impossible* for them to be "wrong" regarding procedural issues ones after all appeals have been exhausted.


Don't you have your own opinion on anything?

He probably didn't get the list of opinions in the mail yet from The Blaze. At any rate, your argument is complete, absolute bullsh*t. The worst sort of manufactured "concern". It is, no joke, less convincing than "I'm concerned red stop lights might be part of a communist indoctrination plot. I mean, come on, RED? Why hasn't SCOTUS ruled on this, yet?"

You should probably move on, I'm open to the possibility that there may be some non zero number of posters who treats your posts as anything other than comic relief. If you continue the line you're taking in this argument, I'm fairly sure that will no longer be the case.

Edited, Aug 28th 2013 8:01am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#105 Aug 28 2013 at 6:42 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,947 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Franklin Pierce - "at least we know he was born here!"


Hey, he had that tragic, handsome brooding thing going for him, too. And he once crashed a carriage while drunk.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#106 Aug 28 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
******
44,263 posts
gbaji wrote:
And what resulted was *not* satisfactory,
People didn't get the answer they wanted, so they were unsatisfied. You really blew the cover off that one.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#107 Aug 29 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,856 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Haha, yeah you're right. I totally didn't break it down step by step or anything. Got me there!


You quoted the requirements for standing step by step. What you failed to do was actually make any sort of argument that those rules precluded standing in any of the cases in question. You simply stated that since all those judges ruled on standing, that none of those people must have standing.

What's funny is that you don't actually agree with their rulings (or at least one) despite your dogmatic need to just accept whatever a judge says:

Jophiel wrote:
Anyone from the 2008/2012 Democratic primaries or general elections would have had standing to pursue the case in court since they'd have suffered actual personal harm from Obama being ineligible.


You are aware that Alan Keyes was the primary plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, which was also dismissed for lack of standing? And that he ran for President in 2008? So your own assumption about who would have standing is incorrect as well. Which raises the point I've been trying to get across all along. The issue isn't about whether you think the questions about Obama's birth had merit, but that we should all be concerned that apparently no one has standing to challenge it in the first place.

So who has standing Joph? And if no one does, then haven't we just effectively eliminated the requirement?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Aug 29 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What you failed to do was actually make any sort of argument that those rules precluded standing in any of the cases in question.

No, what I "failed" to do is meet your ludicrous standards for an argument about why the cases didn't have standing. But then I'm not really trying to convince you since you've already proven how insane you are about all this. I don't believe for a second that there's any magical combination of words that would make you say "Haha, you're right... those Birther cases really were properly dismissed for lack of standing! Good job pointing that out..."

I'm okay with that but you can't expect me to worry that I failed to meet your pretend standards either.

gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Anyone from the 2008/2012 Democratic primaries or general elections would have had standing to pursue the case in court since they'd have suffered actual personal harm from Obama being ineligible.
You are aware that Alan Keyes was the primary plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, which was also dismissed for lack of standing? And that he ran for President in 2008?

(bolding mine... well, it would have been mine anyway, but now it's newly bolded)
I'm pretty sure that Alan Keyes was not on the Democratic primary ticket. He was on the Republican ticket and lost the nomination, therefore he was never in competition with Obama and suffered no harm.

Edited, Aug 29th 2013 5:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Aug 29 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
What's funny is that you don't actually agree with their rulings (or at least one) despite your dogmatic need to just accept whatever a judge says?

Given that you, personally, bought your way out of a prison sentence, I'd think you'd like judges more than you are showing in this thread.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#110 Aug 29 2013 at 7:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,856 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Anyone from the 2008/2012 Democratic primaries or general elections would have had standing to pursue the case in court since they'd have suffered actual personal harm from Obama being ineligible.
You are aware that Alan Keyes was the primary plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, which was also dismissed for lack of standing? And that he ran for President in 2008?

(bolding mine... well, it would have been mine anyway, but now it's newly bolded)
I'm pretty sure that Alan Keyes was not on the Democratic primary ticket. He was on the Republican ticket and lost the nomination, therefore he was never in competition with Obama and suffered no harm.


He ran in the general election as the American Independent Party nominee. Therefore he precisely fits the criteria you said earlier would (should) give him standing to sue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Aug 29 2013 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,856 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What's funny is that you don't actually agree with their rulings (or at least one) despite your dogmatic need to just accept whatever a judge says?

Given that you, personally, bought your way out of a prison sentence, I'd think you'd like judges more than you are showing in this thread.


Er? I've never been charged with a crime in my life. So... huh?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Aug 29 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What's funny is that you don't actually agree with their rulings (or at least one) despite your dogmatic need to just accept whatever a judge says?

Given that you, personally, bought your way out of a prison sentence, I'd think you'd like judges more than you are showing in this thread.
Er? I've never been charged with a crime in my life. So... huh?

No, you weren't charged because you bought your way out of trouble. I assumed it was a judge you had to deal with, what with defrauding Uncle Sam and all.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#113 Aug 29 2013 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
He ran in the general election as the American Independent Party nominee.

Which was on the general election ballots in three states.
Wiki wrote:
Instead, Keyes' supporters formed a new third party, America's Independent Party, for his presidential candidacy. America's Independent Party gained the affiliation of a faction of California's American Independent Party. However, the AIP ticket, which had Brian Rohrbough, father of a victim of the Columbine High School massacre, of Colorado as its vice presidential candidate, was only on the ballot in California, Colorado, and Florida.

It's impossible to win the presidency with 91 electoral votes. Hence there is no argument that Obama cost him anything. I'll admit that my original statement about the general election assumed a candidate who was actually eligible to win (one of the two major parties or perhaps a nationwide independent or 3rd party candidate). I also only remembered Keyes for his original GOP primary run and paid no attention to his failed third party bid. Since CA was one of the three states he was on the ballot in, I guess you were more aware than I.

Edit: From the looks of it, the 9th Circuit Court dismissed for lack of standing on the grounds that they could not redress Keyes' complaint. They stated in the dismissal that their reasons were "different" than from the previous court but I couldn't find the statement from that court. The US Supreme Court dismissed the case without comment so we don't know exactly why Roberts & Co didn't care for it, only that they didn't.

Edited, Aug 29th 2013 10:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Aug 30 2013 at 6:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,214 posts
If it weren't for Obama, gbaji would be probably be poking his eyes out right now trying to cope with Hilary as Pres.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#115 Aug 30 2013 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
******
44,263 posts
The only reason anyone even knows who Alan Keyes is is because he's a meme.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Aug 30 2013 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I know who he is because he ran against Obama for the IL senate seat.

When people say that Obama was only elected because he's black, it's fun to mention that Keyes only received about 20% of the vote and that was almost entirely from white Republicans. Given a choice between two African-American candidates competing on their ideologies rather than their race, there was still no contest.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Aug 30 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,856 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He ran in the general election as the American Independent Party nominee.

Which was on the general election ballots in three states.


And he thus had standing to challenge Obama's name appearing on the ballot in those three states, right?

Quote:
It's impossible to win the presidency with 91 electoral votes. Hence there is no argument that Obama cost him anything.


You didn't say "the second place guy" could sue. You said "anyone in the Democratic Primary or the General Election" would have standing to sue.

It's also an irrelevant point. The judge can't engage in speculation. He can't dismiss a case on standing on the grounds of "You'd have lost anyway". That presumes that the judge can know what would have happened had Obama's name not been on the ballot, and also presumes that Keyes only reason for running was to win the office. Many third party candidates run knowing they can't possibly win the race, but to raise awareness and perception of their party's issues. So any difference in potential votes can matter, and the judge can't possibly know to what degree Obama's name being on the ticket might affect those outcomes.

Quote:
I'll admit that my original statement about the general election assumed a candidate who was actually eligible to win (one of the two major parties or perhaps a nationwide independent or 3rd party candidate).


No. Your original statement said "anyone". You are now changing that statement to fit new facts that contradict your original claim.

Quote:
I also only remembered Keyes for his original GOP primary run and paid no attention to his failed third party bid. Since CA was one of the three states he was on the ballot in, I guess you were more aware than I.


Sure. That and failing to recall the name of the case Smash had mentioned resulted in a broader google search than I intended and I honestly just stumbled upon the case Keyes was involved in. That it happened to exactly refute what you'd said earlier prompted me to mention it.

I'll repeat that I don't agree with your new and narrow requirement for standing. Both for the reason that we can't assume the only "harm" done to another candidate in the race is lack of taking first place and because we can't know what the absence of a candidate in the race might have changed. For example, by your argument Clinton could sue, but not Edwards. But we can't possibly assume that. With Obama out of the race, perhaps Edwards would have taken his spot and even the nomination (lets set aside the love child thing of course). Point being that we can't possibly assume what would have happened. And more to the point, a judge absolutely can't when assessing simple standing.


Of course since someone like say McCain didn't sue over this issue, we can't really know for sure what would have happened. I have a sneaking suspicion that in addition to it ruining his career, he likely also would have had his case dismissed. At a certain point it became pretty obvious that the judges were really ruling on the presumed merits of the case, but using standing as a cheap way of getting out of having to actually give the plaintiff his "day in court". And to be fair, I get why they did this. Political campaigns are full of bogus suits and legal motions designed to dig up dirt on the other guy. Remember that guy in Chicago? Ryan I think? Who basically got discredited after his divorce proceedings were unsealed and leaked to the public. It's a common dirty trick to have some surrogate drum up some BS lawsuit in order to gain access to documents in the hopes that there might be something embarrassing in them. Happens all the time, and judges tend to be aware of this and stop it when they can. And the common method to prevent that is to dismiss on standing. If you don't, then you have to allow for documents to be accessed in order to dismiss on any other means (or come to a full ruling). Anything other than standing fails to block the other guy from opening up documents, thus allowing the fishing expedition to succeed.


So I get why they did it. I just think that in this particular case it was a poor choice. Birth records don't (or should not) contain anything that would be directly embarrassing to the candidate themselves. And unlike say divorce records, of tax records, or business contracts, there is actually a constitutional requirement involving the birth records involved. I just really think that the judges looked at the whole issue as an assumed fishing expedition (although I'm not sure what they thought anyone could find), and rejected it, but didn't consider that in reality maybe we ought to have a right to know what the vital records of a potential president say, and that maybe that's not something judges should go to those kinds of lengths to protect.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Aug 30 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And he thus had standing to challenge Obama's name appearing on the ballot in those three states, right?
[...]
You didn't say "the second place guy" could sue. You said "anyone in the Democratic Primary or the General Election" would have standing to sue.

I would argue no and I have a suspicion that the original case ruled no on those grounds as well, but I couldn't find the ruling (not that I poured much time into it). The appeal level ruled "no" based on ability to redress the issue. The Supreme Court just say "nah" and booted the case. All three levels agreed that there was nothing to it. I'm not going to feel especially bad if my amateur legal opinion wasn't shared by every judge.
Quote:
I'll repeat that I don't agree with your new and narrow requirement for standing.

That's fine. Also irrelevant since no one cares what either of us agree with. I don't believe he had standing based on my reading of the law. You're welcome to wave your arms around and insist that I only think that because it was a lawsuit about Obama and yadda, yadda... nothing I'm going to say to change your mind and it doesn't matter now anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Aug 30 2013 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
******
44,263 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course since someone like say McCain didn't sue over this issue, we can't really know for sure what would have happened. I have a sneaking suspicion that in addition to it ruining his career, he likely also would have had his case dismissed.
Please, Sergeant Grumpy had no career to ruin at that point.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Aug 30 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,477 posts
I just really think that the judges looked at the whole issue as an assumed fishing expedition (although I'm not sure what they thought anyone could find), and rejected it, but didn't consider that in reality maybe we ought to have a right to know what the vital records of a potential president say, and that maybe that's not something judges should go to those kinds of lengths to protect.

You are wrong. Which is surprising, as normally your insights into other people's thought processes is so keen and accurate.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#121 Aug 30 2013 at 10:11 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
And unlike say divorce records, of tax records, or business contracts, there is actually a constitutional requirement involving the birth records involved.
The bolded three should be required to be made public before the candidate gets on the ballot as well.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#122 Sep 02 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Franklin Pierce - "at least we know he was born here!"


Hey, he had that tragic, handsome brooding thing going for him, too. And he once crashed a carriage while drunk.


Yeah, great great great uncle Frankie knew how to party! (the horse started it!)
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#123 Sep 03 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
******
44,263 posts
Don't blame the horse, he was fahsnickered.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help