Main Menu

85 Responses to Grinols dismissed!

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG April 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

    The surprise ending that no one could have seen coming!

  2. avatar
    Bob April 22, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    WE WON! WE WON! WE WON!

  3. avatar
    Daniel April 22, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

    Motion for reconsideration because the judge is a big meanie in 3…2…1…

  4. avatar
    Andrew Morris April 22, 2013 at 3:09 pm #

    And what daniel says is the proble, really, because without a major smackdown, and heavy-duty sanctions, she will just keep this going.

  5. avatar
    donna April 22, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    SHOCKED i tell you, shocked

  6. avatar
    alg April 22, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    How can this be? I thought for sure Orly had Mr. O by the veritable balls this time. That Barack is one slippery usurper! 🙂

  7. avatar
    SluggoJD April 22, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

    Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

  8. avatar
    US Citizen April 22, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

    SluggoJD:
    Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

    Yes, Judge Reinhold

  9. avatar
    donna April 22, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

    SluggoJD: Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

    SERIOUSLY? soros must roar at all of the credit you and your ilk gives him

  10. avatar
    Arthur April 22, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

    donna:
    SluggoJD: Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

    SERIOUSLY?soros must roar at all of the credit you and your ilk gives him

    Of course he’s not serious. Sluggo is not a birther. How can one be an active participant on this blog and not know that? My apologies if you were joking.

  11. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG April 22, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

    SluggoJD:
    Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

    Judge Fudge, but he can’t help you. He’s far too busy being delicious!

  12. avatar
    Joey April 22, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    SluggoJD:
    Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

    Judge Judy.

  13. avatar
    Joey April 22, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

    Taitz v. Mississippi Democratic Party is the last “big” birther suit still pending. 202 down, 1 ( and some minor actions) to go!

  14. avatar
    john April 22, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

    “Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?”

    Judge Roy Moore. Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court. We will see. If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore. Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others. Who knows.

  15. avatar
    aarrgghh April 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

    john: Judge Roy Moore. Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court. We will see. If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore. Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others. Who knows.

    who knows? with your track record, it’s a given you don’t.

  16. avatar
    Jim April 22, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

    john:
    “Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?”

    Judge Roy Moore.Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court.We will see.If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore.Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others.Who knows.

    So John, once Judge Moore’s court dismisses their case, will you admit defeat? BWAHAHAHAHA

  17. avatar
    Graham Shevlin April 22, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

    Sheesh, If could have a dollar for every time I have read the desperate hopeful plea “One Honest Judge” since 2009, I could be vacationing in Bora Bora about now…

  18. avatar
    donna April 22, 2013 at 7:24 pm #

    klayman & moore are both columnists at wing nuts daily: “We are deeply honored to welcome Judge Moore to WorldNetDaily,” said WND Editor Joseph Farah.

    no conflict there for an “honest judge”

  19. avatar
    Serpico April 22, 2013 at 7:27 pm #

    Where is the confirmation that it was dismissed?

  20. avatar
    Daniel April 22, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

    Serpico:
    Where is the confirmation that it was dismissed?

    The people in the court who heard the Judge say it…. or would that be forged too do you think? lol

  21. avatar
    CarlOrcas April 22, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

    Serpico:
    Where is the confirmation that it was dismissed?

    We’re waiting for the State of Hawaii to prepare the documents. Stand by.

  22. avatar
    JPotter April 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

    SluggoJD:
    Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

    That’s JudgeMaster Soros, Sluggo!

    He doesn’t own Judge Dredd. Not that he would do de birfers any favors … do birfers like iso-cubes? I would like birfers in iso-cubes.

  23. avatar
    JPotter April 22, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    Graham Shevlin: I could be vacationing in Bora Bora about now…

    Hell, living in Bora Bora by now….

  24. avatar
    JPotter April 22, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

    john: Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage

    Just give him a minute to cover up the 9th Commandment on his traveling monument, and he should be good to go.

  25. avatar
    Deborah April 22, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

    No word from Orly at 6:30 Pacific time, 9:30 EST!!! SEND SYMPATHY CARDS!

  26. avatar
    Northland10 April 22, 2013 at 10:28 pm #

    Deborah:
    No word from Orly at 6:30 Pacific time, 9:30 EST!!! SEND SYMPATHY CARDS!

    On Reality Check Radio, they mentioned she was driving back home, maybe with her used second hand x-ray machine.

  27. avatar
    donna April 22, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

    3 hours ago, ORYR posted: According to Obots at today’s Obama identity fraud hearing in California Judge England dismissed the case with no sanctions.

    I’ll update this post later today with confirmation and Dr. Taitz’s statement… and more details when available…

  28. avatar
    Deborah April 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm #

    I couldn’t get the Reality Check broadcast to come in- it was live but I couldn’t get it. I’ll wait for a replay.

    Oh- it seems to be coming in a little. At first all I got was images (empty chair, Carmen, etc)- then one sentence of dialogue.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

    You can download it from iTunes.

    Deborah: Oh- it seems to be coming in a little. At first all I got was images (empty chair, Carmen, etc)- then one sentence of dialogue.

  30. avatar
    SluggoJD April 22, 2013 at 11:36 pm #

    donna:
    SluggoJD: Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?

    SERIOUSLY?soros must roar at all of the credit you and your ilk gives him

    Huh? lol

  31. avatar
    SluggoJD April 22, 2013 at 11:38 pm #

    Arthur: Of course he’s not serious. Sluggo is not a birther. How can one be an active participant on this blog and not know that? My apologies if you were joking.

    Thanks Arthur. Donna must not know I’m one of the early anti-birthers, from way way back in the days of TheObamaFile and Sammy Korir, Texas Darlin, TechDude, etc.

    Hard to believe this crap just goes on and on like this.

  32. avatar
    SluggoJD April 22, 2013 at 11:39 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Judge Fudge, but he can’t help you. He’s far too busy being delicious!

    LOL worthy of a chuckle.

  33. avatar
    SluggoJD April 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

    john:
    “Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?”

    Judge Roy Moore.Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court.We will see.If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore.Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others.Who knows.

    I know you’re a fake birther, you gotta be a fake birther, someone playing the role of the perfect birther, because nobody in real life can be as stupid as you, right???

  34. avatar
    SluggoJD April 22, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

    Serpico:
    Where is the confirmation that it was dismissed?

    You’re back for more embarrassing moments? Haven’t you been diced and sliced and basically ground into disgusting hamburger meat enough times already?

  35. avatar
    SluggoJD April 22, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    Majority Will: Check it for layers and smiley faces.

    LOLOLOL I love it!! Best post of the month!

  36. avatar
    nbc April 23, 2013 at 12:09 am #

    john: Judge Roy Moore. Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court. We will see. If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore. Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others. Who knows.

    Well, if he is truly honest, he will also dismiss… Somehow John still does not understand our legal system…

  37. avatar
    Rickey April 23, 2013 at 1:31 am #

    nbc: Well, if he is truly honest, he will also dismiss… Somehow John still does not understand our legal system…

    John also fails to comprehend that the only relief which Klayman’s lawsuit asks for is de-certification of of the 2012 presidential election results in Alabama if the candidates fail or provide proof of eligibility. Which means that even if Klayman were to win the suit, it would change absolutely nothing since Obama didn’t win any of Alabama’s electoral votes.

  38. avatar
    nbc April 23, 2013 at 3:06 am #

    Rickey: John also fails to comprehend that the only relief which Klayman’s lawsuit asks for is de-certification of of the 2012 presidential election results in Alabama if the candidates fail or provide proof of eligibility. Which means that even if Klayman were to win the suit, it would change absolutely nothing since Obama didn’t win any of Alabama’s electoral votes.

    That’s a major fail as well.. Who finds these lawyers?

  39. avatar
    The Magic M April 23, 2013 at 4:31 am #

    nbc: That’s a major fail as well..

    Don’t forget those who aren’t seriously deluded are aiming for the propaganda value. They believe if they win in Alabama, it would be a game-changer for the 2014 elections (just like they hoped to influence the 2012 Presidential elections last year).

    donna: 3 hours ago, ORYR posted: According to Obots at today’s Obama identity fraud hearing in California Judge England dismissed the case with no sanctions.

    It’s amazing what passes as victory in birtherstan these days.
    Actually it’s a loss-loss – if they had been sanctioned, they could appeal the sanctions and “win”.

  40. avatar
    Lupin April 23, 2013 at 6:03 am #

    Grifters and gullible idiots, foxes and hens, in short the birther community.

    Out of curiosity, john, have you actually / ever contributed any $$$ to any of the people whose fights you claim to support?

  41. avatar
    bovril April 23, 2013 at 6:28 am #

    The (only) part that saddens me (a teeny weeny bit) with Birfoons is, based on the general witnessed demographics of the faithful who turn up at “events”, that they are heavily weighted towards the retired or otherwise on a fixed/restricted income.

    These are people who (apart from the intellectual dissonance of screaming about feckless SOCIALIST COMMIE LIEBERALS whilst usually supping deep from socialised medicine and government pensions) can’t ACTUALLY afford to hand over their gelt to the grifters.

    But they do, again and again and again.

    They are the PBI of the Birfoon world, hurting themselves whilst the few at the top of the tree, with no ACTUAL care or emotional engagement in the issue other than for partisan or personal aggrandisation live very comfortably off them. True parasites.

    Still, the Birfoons do it voluntarily so bad cess to them.

  42. avatar
    misha marinsky April 23, 2013 at 8:00 am #

    john:“Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?”

    None – sorry, but we own all of them.

    john: If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore.Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others.

    Yeah, like Moore doesn’t know the 1st Amendment. His Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse foyer was unconstitutional. He put it there at 3 AM. That’s courage.

    john: Who knows.

    Who cares?

  43. avatar
    john April 23, 2013 at 9:38 am #

    Judge England and the state of California said that Orly’s case was moot. Actually, Orly is absolutely right, her case is certainly not moot. However, Orly kind argued that it was poorly. Orly’s case represent a legal issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” This applies to Obama. The disturbing conclusion we left with to birthers is the following:

    OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    So the issue is ripe and will continue to be ripe.

    Wait! What about the 22th Amendment!????

    “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…..”

    Note the key words “elected” and “President”.

    The 22nd Amendment ONLY applies to the President and Elections:

    This means Obama can run for VICE PRESIDENT an unlimited number of times and can obtain the Presidency through sucession.

    Having said all of this we know the Vice President involves electoral votes as well.

    So in the end, Orly is absolutely right and Judge England and State are just plain wrong.

    Obama can be on the California ballot in 2016, 2020, 2024 and on and can continue to receive electoral votes.

    And remember someone who must be eligible to the President must be eligible to the Vice President as well.

  44. avatar
    JD Reed April 23, 2013 at 9:55 am #

    John, just what do you expect Roy Moore to do? He’s just one justice in one state, one that voted for Mr. Obama’s opponent, so Moore can’t take any electoral votes from the president. Even if he were to carry the Alabama SC with him, the decision would mean nothing. Any decision that purports to somehow affect the national election would swiftly be reversed and dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
    What are you looking for, a way to say the score is 200-odd to 1 against the birthers rather than 200-plus to 0?

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2013 at 10:32 am #

    I should also point out that the qualifications for the Vice President are the same as for the President. So no one who had been elected to two terms as President could serve as Vice President.

    In the case of Roe v. Wade (which was moot as to Roe by the time it was decided by the Court), there was no question that the issue of abortion would come up again.

    It is hugely unlikely that Barack Obama would attempt to run for Vice President. Therefore, the exception to the mootness rule does not apply.

    john: OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    So the issue is ripe and will continue to be ripe.

    Wait! What about the 22th Amendment!????

  46. avatar
    Yoda April 23, 2013 at 10:36 am #

    john:
    Judge England and the state of California said that Orly’s case was moot.Actually, Orly is absolutely right, her case is certainly not moot.However, Orly kind argued that it was poorly.Orly’s case represent a legal issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.”This applies to Obama.The disturbing conclusion we left with to birthers is the following:

    OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    So the issue is ripe and will continue to be ripe.

    Wait!What about the 22th Amendment!????

    “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…..”

    Note the key words “elected” and “President”.

    The 22nd Amendment ONLY applies to the President and Elections:

    This means Obama can run for VICE PRESIDENT an unlimited number of times and can obtain the Presidency through sucession.

    Having said all of this we know the Vice President involves electoral votes as well.

    So in the end, Orly is absolutely right and Judge England and State are just plain wrong.

    Obama can be on the California ballot in 2016, 2020, 2024 and on and can continue to receive electoral votes.

    And remember someone who must be eligible to the President must be eligible to the Vice President as well.

    Birfer nonsense was predicted by the Bard:

    It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    I would note that people who are not retired tend to have to be at work on a Monday morning. The sample from yesterday is biased.

    Nevertheless, the maxim says “idle hands are the devil’s workshop” and people of limited means, but unlimited time, tend to go online a lot, where there is no shortage of prettily-packaged nonsense.

    bovril: The (only) part that saddens me (a teeny weeny bit) with Birfoons is, based on the general witnessed demographics of the faithful who turn up at “events”, that they are heavily weighted towards the retired or otherwise on a fixed/restricted income.

  48. avatar
    john April 23, 2013 at 10:39 am #

    “I should also point out that the qualifications for the Vice President are the same as for the President. So no one who had been elected to two terms as President could serve as Vice President.”

    Obama could conceivably run for Vice President again and again but only could get the Presidency through sucession, that is if the President resigned or died. Obama is only forbidden to run for President again as result of an election. There is no term limit on SERVING, only on being elected. In addition, Obama could run for Congress again and could become Speaker of the House. In that case, he would 3rd in line for the POTUS.

  49. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg April 23, 2013 at 10:46 am #

    John, Orly is wrong and Judge England and the defendants’ counsel are correct regarding the mootness issue. You seem to think that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” doctrine applies, but that’s only because you are clueless about what it applies to. (Well, I could have stopped at “you are clueless”.) The doctrine refers to an evolving condition of the plaintiff that moots an action before it can be heard and ruled upon. Plaintiff. Like a pregnant woman suing for her reproductive rights or a parolee whose parol has been revoked but his sentence will be completely served before his revocation challenge has ben heard.

    Obama is not a plaintiff. So tell us, John, what condition does Orly have that will vanish before her frivolous suit makes its way through the courts?

  50. avatar
    gorefan April 23, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    john: Obama could conceivably run for Vice President again and again

    More likely President Hillary Clinton will nominate him to the Supreme Court to replace either Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2013 at 10:48 am #

    I read the 12th Amendment more broadly than you do. Either way, my other point stands: the scenario is unlikely to come up, and therefore is not an exception to the mootness rule. Because the scenario is speculative, it does not constitute a real case or controversy, and this places it outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

    john: Obama could conceivably run for Vice President again and again but only could get the Presidency through sucession (sic), that is if the President resigned or died. Obama is only forbidden to run for President again as result of an election. There is no term limit on SERVING, only on being elected. In addition, Obama could run for Congress again and could become Speaker of the House. In that case, he would 3rd in line for the POTUS.

  52. avatar
    gorefan April 23, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    Butterfly Bilderberg:

    Do you know if there were going to be any botg at the Vermont Supreme Court (Paige v. Obama) today?

    I’m hoping for a state Supreme Court opinion that smacks down the two-citizen parent theories of Mario Apuzzo in that case.

  53. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate April 23, 2013 at 11:18 am #

    john: And remember someone who must be eligible to the President must be eligible to the Vice President as well.

    Absolutely correct. As the 12th Amendment states “. . . no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” So, not yet 35 years old, ineligible to be VP. Not a natural born citizen, ineligible to be VP. Not 14 years a resident of the US, ineligible to be VP. And since, as the 22nd Amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice . . ., then twice elected President, ineligible to be VP. Amendment 22 created a new, negative qualification for President, &, under the eligiblity provision of Amendment 12, for the VP as well, something john hasn’t taken into account.

  54. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund April 23, 2013 at 12:40 pm #

    Similarly, the Presidential Succession Act bars those who are constitutionally ineligible to be President from being in the line of succession. So if he became Speaker of the House, he would be “skipped over” in the line of succession.

    The only way for Obama to become President again (or Acting President) is for the law to be changed or the Constitution to be amended.

  55. avatar
    Sef April 23, 2013 at 12:40 pm #

    john: OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    So you are saying that there is no reason to fear the future?

  56. avatar
    Daniel April 23, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    donna:
    klayman & moore are both columnists at wing nuts daily: “We are deeply honored to welcome Judge Moore to WorldNetDaily,” said WND Editor Joseph Farah.

    no conflict there for an “honest judge”

    Actually that would be a clear conflict of interest, IMHO. Could one of our resident Lawyers chime in here please? Wouldn’t Moore be likely to recuse himself if both he and Klayman are columnists for the same “news” agency?

  57. avatar
    Bob April 23, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    john: The disturbing conclusion we left with to birthers is the following:

    Yep. Birthers ALWAYS come to the most disturbing (and absurd) conclusions. Birthers ALWAYS imagine the worst. That’s what they live for.

  58. avatar
    nbc April 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

    john: The disturbing conclusion we left with to birthers is the following:

    OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    ROTFL… Birthers are not very good in logic I would say, that’s the only ‘disturbing’ conclusion.

  59. avatar
    Kiwiwriter April 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

    Well, John continues to spound some incredible lunacy…if Obama was going to be “president-for-life,” why didn’t he just do it right after the inauguration or after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, when he had the Senate, House, and polls supporting him, jail the birthers on the spot, and save us all a lot of money. Why even BOTHER to contest the 2012 election?

    The first thing Hitler did after taking power was make sure he had no way to lose it. He didn’t wait eight years to shred the Weimar Constitution, he did it right off the bat. Same thing with all these other dictators, tinpot and otherwise. Real dictators don’t waste time or screw around when becoming “Maximum Leader” or “The Last King of Scotland.” They start right away. Usually by whacking their fellow revolutionaries, who are the greatest threat to them.

    And “John” and the rest of the birthers are running around free as bats, their web pages in business, making their protests, filing their court cases.

    It’s amazing how the tyrannical government never gets round to becoming a tyranny.

    But back to Orly….I guess the judge wasn’t listening when she said, “Let me feeeeeneeeeesh!”

  60. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion April 23, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    donna:
    klayman & moore are both columnists at wing nuts daily: “We are deeply honored to welcome Judge Moore to WorldNetDaily,” said WND Editor Joseph Farah.

    no conflict there for an “honest judge”

    Not to mention that Moore endorsed Klayman in his failed senate run in Florida, and Klayman has called Moore his “friend” and “hero”.

    An ethical judge would recuse himself due to conflict of interest. So I don’t expect Moore to recuse himself.

  61. avatar
    Plantmaster April 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    SluggoJD

    john:
    “Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?”

    Judge Roy Moore.Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court.We will see.If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore.Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others.Who knows.

    I know you’re a fake birther, you gotta be a fake birther, someone playing the role of the perfect birther, because nobody in real life can be as stupid as you, right???
    **********
    john:

    Judge England and the state of California said that Orly’s case was moot. Actually, Orly is absolutely right, her case is certainly not moot. However, Orly kind argued that it was poorly. Orly’s case represent a legal issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” This applies to Obama. The disturbing conclusion we left with to birthers is the following:

    OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    ***********
    How does one come up with that conclusion? John really IS that clueless. With logic like this, Taitz and Klayman should have him talking to the judges in Mississippi and Alabama… 😉

  62. avatar
    Plantmaster April 23, 2013 at 5:01 pm #

    john

    Judge England and the state of California said that Orly’s case was moot. Actually, Orly is absolutely right, her case is certainly not moot. However, Orly kind argued that it was poorly. Orly’s case represent a legal issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” This applies to Obama. The disturbing conclusion we left with to birthers is the following:

    OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    *************

    Oh, John…….your critical thinking function is clearly moot. I declare, when it’s time for your autopsy, the coroner is going to look at your brain and declare: “Perfectly new! It’s never been used!”

  63. avatar
    Woodrowfan April 23, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

    John is, as always, wrong. According to the 22d Amendment a President is limited to, at most, 10 years in office, and only then if he started off by serving no more than 2 years of his predecessor’s term.

  64. avatar
    SluggoJD April 23, 2013 at 10:08 pm #

    Plantmaster:
    SluggoJD

    john:
    “Is there any judge in the land that George Soros doesn’t own?”

    Judge Roy Moore.Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court.We will see.If there is any HONEST judge across the land, it is Judge Roy Moore.Will Judge Roy Moore have the courage that been so fleeting from all the others.Who knows.

    I know you’re a fake birther, you gotta be a fake birther, someone playing the role of the perfect birther, because nobody in real life can be as stupid as you, right???
    **********
    john:

    Judge England and the state of California said that Orly’s case was moot. Actually, Orly is absolutely right, her case is certainly not moot. However, Orly kind argued that it was poorly. Orly’s case represent a legal issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” This applies to Obama. The disturbing conclusion we left with to birthers is the following:

    OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    ***********
    How does one come up with that conclusion? John really IS that clueless. With logic like this, Taitz and Klayman should have him talking to the judges in Mississippi and Alabama…

    Sorry, I continue to believe John is merely someone acting out a role as the quintessential birther, something I don’t find funny. Energy should be directed towards fighting real battles, not fake ones.

  65. avatar
    Deborah April 24, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    Here’s a video posted on Infowars by Alex Jones disclaiming the Associated Press connection between his conspiracy theories and the Bosston bombings.

    http://www.infowars.com/video-ap-ties-infowars-com-to-boston-bombing/

    Glen Beck long ago dissociated from the birther movement, and so did Fox news, even though they are both right wing religious propagandists. I also learned that Hannity of Fox was very good friends with the deceased Breitbart.

  66. avatar
    Deborah April 24, 2013 at 12:33 am #

    oops, I posted the above in the wrong spot, and no edit time left.

  67. avatar
    Yoyopa April 24, 2013 at 12:52 am #

    I have been reading this (Doc’s) blogsite for several months now, and I’ve really enjoyed it. I am not so much an Obot as I am an anti-Birther; it is hard to fathom how much stupidity and racism still exists in this country – with the Birthers attempting to hide their racism behind the facade of “patriotism.” We have to keep fighting such stupidity and racism, and I apprecite the Doc for doing so.

    This is my first comment on this site. I thought I would respond to the comments of those who are so “absolutely certain” that Obama could never serve as President after January 20, 2017. (Like I said, I am not an Obot, nor am I advocating in any way that Obama serve as President after his current term expires. However, while I am not a Constitutional Law professor, I am an attorney (and have been for more than 20 years) and have, at least, studied the issue before.)

    Here’s my comment to those people: You are wrong. The Constitution does NOT absolutely prohibit someone from BEING President for a period of more than ten years. The Constitution only prevents someone from being ELECTED more than twice (or more than once if the President served more than two years of the previous President’s term). Thus, a person who had been previously elected President twice could still subsequently SUCCEED to the Presidency, if that person had been nominated Vice-President by a different President when a vacancy arose in the office of Vice-President and the nominee (i.e., the former President) had been confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. (See the 25th Amendment.) When the new President resigned, the former President (now the Vice-President) would automatically become President (ala Gerald Ford).

    If the drafters of the 22nd Amendment had wanted to make someone who had been previously elected President twice ABSOLUTELY ineligible to ever serve as President again, they could have – and WOULD HAVE – said that. They had certainly used the word “eligible” before in the Constitution. It would have been as simple as saying something like, “No person shall be eligible to serve as President who shall have been previously elected to that office twice….” But, they didn’t say that. AND WE CAN’T READ THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE 22ND AMENDMENT!!! WE CAN’T “ASSUME” THE DRAFTERS’ INTENT ON THAT ISSUE!!! For all we know, the intent of the drafters may have been to allow a method where someone with the experience a two-term President would obviously have garnered to possibly succeed to the Presidency again through the “appointment/succession” process. I’m not saying that is necessarily the case, nor do I believe there is any type of likelihood of a two-term President ever subsequently succeeding to the President, BUT IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE (at least, currently).

    Now, I’m glad I got that off my chest. It’s just that I have a problem with pompous “know-it-alls” who hold themselves out as such “experts” on the Constitution, when it is overwhelmingly evident they have never done anything more than “skim” the document. I suppose, if it came down to it, a court could disagree with me in the future. So, I’m certainly not saying I’m infallible on the subject. But, I at least know what the Constitution says – and I don’t read words into it that aren’t there (as Birthers and so-called “experts” on this site are prone to do).

    Thanks.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2013 at 2:23 am #

    Well, I must say that while you qualify your comments a bit in places, you rather come off as a pompous “know-it-all” yourself, and of course no one knows whether you’re really an attorney with 20 years experience, or just someone pretending to be one. My experience is of course limited, but you don’t write like the attorneys I am familiar with. Your failure to make a structured legal argument and cite authority also is a red flag. Of course, you could just be talking down to some bloggers. Still, at the critical points of the argument rather than making an argument you shout (ALL CAPS).

    In fact, a little research shows that the argument has been made by at least one prominent academic that you’re wrong. Matthew J. Franck of Princeton identified the kind of error he thinks folks like you make by saying:

    A famous legal scholar once condemned “clause-bound interpretivism” that treats the words of the text in isolation from one another, rather than as parts of a whole that has an integrated meaning and purpose. Sometimes this criticism is turned against a straw-man originalism that isn’t the real thing. I don’t know whether Gray would call himself an originalist or not, but his article treats the Constitution as a Tinker Toy set to be disassembled and its pieces examined separately, with no attention to the organic structure of the whole that those pieces make.

    The “Gray” referred to in the quotation is Brian Gray, a California law professor that agrees with you.

    Franck says:

    Start with the question of what the 12th Amendment is about. It’s about how presidents are elected, namely by the votes of the electors in what’s popularly called the “electoral college” (a phrase not appearing in the Constitution). For whom could those electors cast their ballots, for either president or vice president, when the amendment was added in 1804? Any native-born citizen of at least 35 years of age who has “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” (Article, II, section 1, clause 5).

    The 22nd amendment, by stating that no person may be elected president more than twice, changed the rules for determining the validity of those ballots that electors cast. Now they may cast their ballots for any native-born citizen, 35 or older and resident in the U.S. for 14 years, who has not been elected twice to the presidency. Since the ordinary path to the presidency contemplated by the Constitution is via the ballots of these electors, then by any ordinary mode of legal reasoning, the 22nd Amendment changed the answer to the question–who is “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President”?–which ballot-casting electors must ask themselves. Now the class includes aliens, immigrants, citizens under 35, others failing the residency requirement, and persons previously elected twice (or having served one term elected and more than half of another’s term after succeeding from the vice presidency–another requirement of the 22nd Amendment).

    It follows from the 22nd Amendment that Bill Clinton, being “constitutionally ineligible” to be elected president, is ineligible to become president by another route. He is, in short, ineligible to be president, and therefore ineligible to become vice president under the 12th amendment.

    Yes, I have a problem with pompous “know-it-alls” too.

    Yoyopa: Now, I’m glad I got that off my chest. It’s just that I have a problem with pompous “know-it-alls” who hold themselves out as such “experts” on the Constitution, when it is overwhelmingly evident they have never done anything more than “skim” the document. I suppose, if it came down to it, a court could disagree with me in the future. So, I’m certainly not saying I’m infallible on the subject. But, I at least know what the Constitution says – and I don’t read words into it that aren’t there (as Birthers and so-called “experts” on this site are prone to do).

  69. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund April 24, 2013 at 10:40 am #

    But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    If the 22nd Amendment was not intended to make two term presidents ineligible to hold the office of president or act as president, the bolded clause would be unnecessary. A person could hold the office or act as president for more than 10 years under the 22nd Amendment, by succession as VP or the Succession Act (hypothetical: as Speaker, becomes Acting President for three years after a terrorist strike takes out the top officials, then runs as VP and becomes President for four years after the President is incapacitated by a stroke following the inauguration, would still be eligible to run as President at the next election). The 22nd Amendment uses election to toll presidential ineligibility.

    Also, the 12th Amendment bars anyone ineligible to be President from being Vice President. It does not limit this ineligibility to being elected Vice President, so a person ineligible to be President may not be elected or appointed Vice President.

    Of course, the Political Question Doctrine would bar the courts from having jurisdiction if the President and Congress decided to violate this aspect of the Constitution, so it doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

  70. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    In the case of Roe v. Wade (which was moot as to Roe by the time it was decided by the Court), there was no question that the issue of abortion would come up again.
    .

    More importantly, it could have come up for Roe again. If her lawsuit had been dismissed, she could have become pregnant again and if she wanted to get an abortion she would have had to start her legal fight all over again. That’s the sort of legal Catch-22 which the “capable of repetition yet evading review” doctrine is intended to address.

  71. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    gorefan: More likely President Hillary Clinton will nominate him to the Supreme Court to replace either Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia

    And here is the kicker – there are no eligibility requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. A Supreme Court Justice doesn’t even have to be a U.S. citizen.

    Birther heads would explode if Obama were to be nominated to SCOTUS.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    Indeed. While I think Obama is a very bright guy, there are probably better choices for the Supreme Court. I can’t help but wonder what Obama will do after he leaves office in 2017. He’ll only be 56 years old.

    I could imagine a teaching career for him.

    Presidents receive a pension of $199,700. A Supreme Court justice gets a salary if $213,900.

    Rickey: Birther heads would explode if Obama were to be nominated to SCOTUS.

  73. avatar
    misha marinsky April 24, 2013 at 12:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can’t help but wonder what Obama will do after he leaves office in 2017.

    President of Kenya. [Ow, stop hitting me. Angel, stop biting me. Excuse me, Max just sunk his claws and teeth into me. What a reaction.]

  74. avatar
    gorefan April 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: there are probably better choices for the Supreme Court

    I also don’t think it is a position he would particularly enjoy.

  75. avatar
    bgansel9 April 25, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

    I’m late to the party, but…

    john: Klayman has some hope his case may go forward with Judge Moore on the court. We will see.

    Klayman sounds like he’s been shopping for a judge.

  76. avatar
    bgansel9 April 25, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    donna: no conflict there for an “honest judge”

    It’s the only way they can do it, Donna. LOL

  77. avatar
    bgansel9 April 25, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    john: OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    So the issue is ripe and will continue to be ripe.

    Wait! What about the 22th Amendment!????

    “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…..”

    Note the key words “elected” and “President”.

    The 22nd Amendment ONLY applies to the President and Elections:

    This means Obama can run for VICE PRESIDENT an unlimited number of times and can obtain the Presidency through sucession.

    Seek psychiatric help, young man. Sooner, rather than later.

  78. avatar
    nbc April 25, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    john: OBAMA CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TERMS AS POTUS.

    Again wrong… How unfamiliar these obama haters are when it comes to our laws and Constitution.

    Sigh…

  79. avatar
    bgansel9 April 25, 2013 at 5:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well, I must say that while you qualify your comments a bit in places, you rather come off as a pompous “know-it-all” yourself, and of course no one knows whether you’re really an attorney with 20 years experience, or just someone pretending to be one. My experience is of course limited, but you don’t write like the attorneys I am familiar with. Your failure to make a structured legal argument and cite authority also is a red flag. Of course, you could just be talking down to some bloggers. Still, at the critical points of the argument rather than making an argument you shout (ALL CAPS).

    In fact, a little research shows that the argument has been made by at least one prominent academic that you’re wrong. Matthew J. Franck of Princeton identified the kind of error he thinks folks like you make by saying:

    The “Gray” referred to in the quotation is Brian Gray, a California law professor that agrees with you.

    Franck says:

    Yes, I have a problem with pompous “know-it-alls” too.

    Yoyopa obviously isn’t a lawyer. He’s just turning the wheels to keep the money coming in after Grinols. The birther celebrities gotta make their money SOME way, don’tcha know! In other words, Grifters gotta grift.

  80. avatar
    Keith April 25, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

    Butterfly Bilderberg: Obama is not a plaintiff. So tell us, John, what condition does Orly have that will vanish before her frivolous suit makes its way through the courts?

    Would it be too much to ask that her lawyering license vanish?

  81. avatar
    The Magic M April 26, 2013 at 1:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can’t help but wonder what Obama will do after he leaves office in 2017. He’ll only be 56 years old.

    Books, paid speeches, campaigning for the next Democratic Presidential candidate… He could renew his law license and make big money by just giving his name to a big law firm (how about “I’m being represented by Obama, Boies, Schiller & Flexner”? ;)).

    In other words: “What would JesusClinton do?” 😉

  82. avatar
    Kiwiwriter April 26, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    I’m upset…John didn’t answer my post! That’s Communism!