Main Menu

PA: Berg ballot challenge rejected

Three ballot challenges were filed in Pennsylvania, challenging Barack Obama’s position on the PA ballot, one from long-time anti-Obama litigant, Phil Berg. The Philadelphia Daily News reports them all dismissed including that of Berg this past Monday.

The court, in a two-page order, said ballot challenges can be based on the authenticity of signatures on nominating petitions, the affidavits of the people who circulated those petitions or the affidavits filed by candidates about their financial interests.

"The sole basis for the objection is [Berg’s] contention that President Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ eligible for the Office of President of the United States under the United States Constitution," the ruling said, adding that Commonwealth Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on Berg’s claims about Obama’s citizenship.

11 Responses to PA: Berg ballot challenge rejected

  1. avatar
    BillTheCat March 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Haha, not surprising but still welcome news.

    Birthers – batting 0 for 100+ now – that’s all that counts. You lose in the courts, that’s all she wrote. All the screaming birther blogs and protestations in website comment sections are irrelevant.

    Win a court case, and we’ll be impressed. Any. Day. Now.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    There is a sort of grinding inevitability in these things.

    BillTheCat: Haha, not surprising but still welcome news.

  3. avatar
    misha March 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    Berg is a schmuck.

  4. avatar
    Daniel March 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

    Don’t these guys read the relevant statutes before they file complaints?

    Lol what am I saying….

  5. avatar
    Joey March 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    Haha, not surprising but still welcome news.

    Birthers – batting 0 for 100+ now – that’s all that counts. You lose in the courts, that’s all she wrote. All the screaming birther blogs and protestations in website comment sections are irrelevant.

    Win a court case, and we’ll be impressed. Any. Day. Now.

    To be more precise, birthers are 0 wins and 102 losses in original jurisdiction lawsuits; 0- wins and 50 losses in appellate rulings, 0 wins and 18 losses at the Supreme Court of the United States and 0 wins and 29 losses in state ballot challenges.
    That’s a grand total of 0 wins and 199 losses for the birthers with more losses to come.

  6. avatar
    G March 21, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    BRAVO for that excellent breakdown!

    So, in terms of actual legal attempts, they are just one shy of now breaking the 200 FAIL mark…

    Joey: To be more precise,

    birthers are 0 wins and 102 losses in original jurisdiction lawsuits;

    0- wins and 50 losses in appellate rulings,

    0 wins and 18 losses at the Supreme Court of the United States

    and 0 wins and 29 losses in state ballot challenges.

    That’s a grand total of 0 wins and 199 losses for the birthers with more losses to come.

  7. avatar
    Jim F March 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    It is all a little bit entertaining to read about all of the court failures however put yourself in the shoes of those who have to deal with all of this nonsence. Even though they are bound to fail someone must go to the trouble of, at least, opening a file and responding in some little way to the claims. Is the USA unique in allowing the same useless court cases to run through the system? Where I live the courts would have stopped it a long time ago. At the very least they would have awarded all costs and would have insisted that any future claims would have to be vetted by a judge before allowing it onto the court system. I believe that mr Obama’s counsel should now lay down a marker and flatly state that they will persue all costs of every failed case even to the point of appealing judges rulings on the matter. If birthers believe what that are saying then they should have no problem with such a minor matter as costs. After all they are saving the country and will surely get their money back when they win.

    I’m afraid that it is no longer a laughing matter.

  8. avatar
    JPotter March 22, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    It is frustrating, but yet another recognition of the wisdom of The Empty Chair. It’s quite inexpensive to man.

  9. avatar
    JPotter March 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    However, it would be refreshing to see the states pursue for their costs, a la Judge Land v. Orly.

  10. avatar
    Lupin March 22, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    Jim F: It is all a little bit entertaining to read about all of the court failures however put yourself in the shoes of those who have to deal with all of this nonsence. Even though they are bound to fail someone must go to the trouble of, at least, opening a file and responding in some little way to the claims. Is the USA unique in allowing the same useless court cases to run through the system? Where I live the courts would have stopped it a long time ago. At the very least they would have awarded all costs and would have insisted that any future claims would have to be vetted by a judge before allowing it onto the court system. I believe that mr Obama’s counsel should now lay down a marker and flatly state that they will pursue all costs of every failed case even to the point of appealing judges rulings on the matter. If birthers believe what that are saying then they should have no problem with such a minor matter as costs. After all they are saving the country and will surely get their money back when they win.

    Hear hear! I couldn’t agree more.

  11. avatar
    G March 22, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    I have always been in favor of reducing the ridiculous amounts of wasteful frivolous lawsuits here in the U.S. by imposing a make the loser pay all costs solution.

    Jim F: Even though they are bound to fail someone must go to the trouble of, at least, opening a file and responding in some little way to the claims. Is the USA unique in allowing the same useless court cases to run through the system? Where I live the courts would have stopped it a long time ago. At the very least they would have awarded all costs and would have insisted that any future claims would have to be vetted by a judge before allowing it onto the court system.