Not a leg to stand on
Orly lost another lawsuit, Taitz v. Sebelius, dismissed for lack of standing. Federal district judge R. Barklay Surrick in Pennsylvania provided us with an excellent education in the problems with birther lawsuits in his scholarly ruling in Berg v Obama et al and we see the same legal principles at play four years later in the November 20 ruling by federal district judge Jorge A. Solis. I mention the 2008 decision in Berg to point out that there is nothing whatever new after four years of birther litigation, and that birthers have every reason to know better than to file these frivolous actions.
In the instant case Orly Taitz alleges that she has been harmed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), but never figures out exactly how the people she was suing actually harmed her as an individual. In addition, her complaint throws in everything but the kitchen sink in terms of unrelated causes and alleged injuries, none of which involve any specific act of a defendant that harmed Orly Taitz personally.
Orly’s caseload is dwindling. Her Indiana case was lost and all that remains is a possible slap on the wrist for her publishing a court reporter recording in contravention of what Judge Reid considered an order prohibiting it. The Mississippi case is winding down with the last round of briefs due Friday before the inevitable dismissal; the big issue there is the possibility of a demand for costs from the defendants. Orly’s Kansas case is lost. The Judd case was tossed in California Federal Court and her California election challenge in state court challenge was tossed.
Read the decision in Taitz v. Sebelius:
TX – Ecf 25 – 2012-11-20 – Taitz v Sebelius – Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
I think Orly will concentrate on her blogging (such as it is) for the next four years. Every day she descends further into a bizarre, Lamecherry-type alternate universe of nuttiness.
Perhaps her husband put his foot down concerning the filing of more frivolous lawsuits.
“In addition, her complaint throws in everything but the kitchen sink”
Are you sure? It’s in there somewhere.
i guess her only remaining hopes are that red state “patriots” succeed with succession and/or 1/3 of the states don’t chose to elect obama on 12/17 pursuant to the 12th amendment
Mitt Romney carried 24 states. We need to have conservative activists from all over the nation contact the electors, the Republican Party and the secretary of state in all of these states and tell them not to participate in the Electoral College when it meets on Dec. 17.
If we can get 17 of those states (just over one-third) to refuse to participate, the Electoral College will have no quorum. Then, as the Constitution directs, the election goes to the House of Representatives.
That is how we can still pull this election out and make Mitt Romney president in January.
We can still save America and use the Constitution to do it. But this truly is our last chance.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/how-obama-can-be-stopped-in-electoral-college/
Of course, the birthers who suggested this have not comprehended the 12th Amendment. It says nothing about a quorum for the Electoral College. If the electors from the red states failed to vote, Obama would win 332-0.
Rickey:
TRUE
Phillips thinks that if the electors in at least 17 of Romney’s 24 states simply boycott the vote, the Electoral College won’t have a quorum, and therefore the election would be thrown to the House–which would presumably choose Romney to be president.
There’s a teeny-tiny problem with that–the 12th Amendment doesn’t actually state that. Rather, it says that if there is a deadlock in the Electoral College, the House must have two thirds of the state delegations present and voting. Phillips got this so wrong that WND was forced to append an editor’s note to his column. So Phillips is not only an extremist–he’s constitutionally ignorant.
Editor’s note, Nov. 20, 2012: Since this column was posted it has been discovered that the premise presented about the Electoral College and the Constitution is in error. According to the 12th Amendment, a two-thirds quorum is required in the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College.
Please sign this petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefu…
we petition the obama administration to:
Peacefully grant all Citizens legal standing in any court, enabling a case on the merits regarding Obama’s ineligibility
We have already 18 signatures and need only 24,982 more. Any signature counts !
Go, fellow Birthers
ProudWASP
Yes, please, allow 2,000 birthers to start 100,000 lawsuits (2,000 plaintiffs times 50 states) at the same time about the very same thing! There has to be one honest judge among 100,000!!!one!!!eleven!!!
Rather if no candidate gets 270 votes = 50% + 1 of the full quorum. (A “deadlock” would imply to me that there are two or more candidates tied in votes which is not necessarily the same; e.g. for some reason 269 electors vote for Obama and 271 don’t vote, the decision goes to the House.)
Isn’t it amazing how they *always* read the Constitution so extremely wrong? Is that still delusion or rather the (at least subconscious) wish to destroy the country that dared to elect a black man President? (And doesn’t have “only WASP’s need apply” in Article II?)
I mean, how come there isn’t even a vocal minority among birthers who calls those “patriots” out who always misread the Constitution?
Easy to overlook, classic actually. She threw everything *into* the kitchen sink. It’s easy to forget that she intends the kitchen sink itself to be included, and isn’t just using the sink as a filing cabinet.
It’s the classic set-up where the prison guard keeps searching the wheelbarrow as the prisoner exits to do work outside the prison, for years and years, never finding anything, and much much later discovers that the prisoner actually was stealing all the wheelbarrows.
just left oily a congratulatory message….doubt it’ll be published 😀
`i love the smell of failure in the morning, it smells like….pancakes!’
Doc… which CA case is still cooking? The only one I know of is one she claims to be filing direct to the CA Supreme Court.
The others have been tossed if I recall correctly. The one where she got hit with 4k in sanctions was later tossed in total… her attempted re-file of her prior dismissed cases in CDCA was tossed.
Perhaps I’m misremembering?? And there’s a live one there somewhere.
Petitions at the White House web site seem to be the latest fad among right wing cranks. I wonder how many of them even knew that site existed before this year’s election.
It’s humorous how wrong they are in estimating the effectiveness. Like hitting that magic 25,000 signatures number guarantees success.
Well, at least the misplaced belief in e-petitions is not a purely right wing phenomenon. Slacktivism is a real bipartisan principle.
Another contradiction to birther logic. If you apply their legal theory and negate all the electoral votes cast for Obama, you also must negate all those cast for Romney. In short, each of the 538 electoral votes is zeroed out by this supposed lack of a quorum. Thus no electoral votes could be certified to the Congress.
So how could the House membership elect a president? They would have no authority to do so, because instead of having as many as three candidates to choose from, they would have zero,
and thus no constitutional authorization to elect a president. They couldn’t choose from the top three vote-getters in the popular election, because the constitution doesn’t call for that.
A second problem: What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In some future presidential election the situation will surely reverse, with a Republican nominee winning the popular vote and the needed states to appoint enough electoral votes to win the electoral college, but the Democratic presidential nominee will win at least 17 states, and hold the majority of House delegations in at least 26 states. So applying the birther precedent, these 17 or more electoral college groups will withhold their votes, throwing the election into the House. (I’m ignoring the above-mentioned constitutional roadblock.)
And even if the Republican wins enough electors to claim the presidency, and Republicans control at least 26 states, a Democratic majority in the Senate could chose the Democratic vice presidential nominee to serve as a thorn in the side of the Republican chief executive for 4 years.
This scenario also assumes that Republican House members would be so shameless as to choose a candidate who was rejected by the voters, and that the nominee’s presidential ambition is so great that he’s willing to go down in history as “His Fraudulency,” erasing any historical memory that Rutherford B. Hayes once held this unofficial but embarrassing title. He would also forfeit any semblance of goodwill from the opposing party.
I would also for decades brand the GOP as the “sore loser” party and the usurper”s party.
And it would destroy for generations, if not forever, any notion that the U.S. government is based on principals such as the rule of law and fair play.
And of course, it would also tear the country apart.
Who could look in the mirror and welcome such a result, yet dare call himself or herself a patriot?
OK. I missed that being tossed.
Doc, is there a symbol for tongue in cheek available ? Inquiring minds seek an answer !
I’m happy to help. In fact, I signed four times:
“Ben Dover”
“Mike Hunt”
“I’bin Farteen”
“If You See Kay”
ProudYID
That is a totally bizarre petition and displays a misunderstanding of the most basic principles of American government. I assume that the commenter is not an American.
In the United States, we have three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial, each assigned specific duties and powers under the US Constitution.
The courts are part of the Judicial branch of government and are governed by Article III of the US Constitution. It is the Constitution which gives the federal courts the authority to hear cases, and specifically actual controversies. The doctrine of standing derives from the Constitutional authority of the courts. Birther cases cannot be heard in federal court because they are not actual controversies as defined by the historical rulings of the Supreme Court interpreting Article III. (If you read the decision in this case, you’ll see a good explanation of this principle.)
It is also possible for the Congress to pass a law that creates a right to sue to some class of persons.
The Executive Branch has no authority over the courts beyond appointing federal judges. For this reason any petition to the White House to force or allow the courts to do anything is nonsense.
I agree that most court cases at this point are frivilous. The best hope for birthers lies with their Senator and Congressman. They have the power to file written objection with the Joint Session of Congress and stop Obama dead in his tracks. Congress is CONSTITUTIONALLY and LEGALLY required to debate the objection. Congress CANNOT ignore the objection. I don’t know if such objection would be successful but should done as symbolic show of disapproval on Obama’s reelection. Super liberal Barbara Boxer made a similiar gesture in 2004 when she objected to Bush winning Ohio.
The closest concept available is “:roll:” that looks like 🙄 (must have space before and after).
Thrifty: I wonder how many of them even knew that site existed before this year’s election.
in 2011, the white house said “NO” to a petition for federal-level legalization of all raw milk sales.
Doc, your software cuts the link. I try again:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-all-citizens-legal-standing-any-court-enabling-case-merits-regarding-obamas/lnd5s0LJ
And do you doubt that the petitioner, Tracy F., is an American Citizen with superior knowledge about the legal system of the US of A ?
Your
ProudWASP
Thank you for the answer, but this is not what I need.
Tracy is not an American citizen. In fact, she is a citizen of Lichtenstein, and temporarily resides in California.
That explains her compleat lack of knowledge about our legal system.
Lier. Still only 18 petitioners a few seconds ago.
Again a lie. She is a USNBC and lives in Maryland.
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/maryland
Tracy’s petition will bring POTUS down !
Raw milk? That must have some definition that I am not aware of. I’ve never had to cook my milk.
I apologize. She lives in Maryland, and is a citizen of Andorra.
So, ProudWASP, you are proposing an unconstitutional and probably illegal piece of manouvering so that the Electoral College fails to certify the election of a president who not only won a majority of the states, but also won a majority of the popular vote?
I can think of many terms for that, but patriotic is not one of them. Try sedition. Or Un-American. Or scumbag wankery.
tracey f?
oh dear, not KBOA surely!
guaranteed fail, even if it wasn’t before, and explains the fail as far as understanding the constitution is concerned.
Graham, never said a word about that nonsense.
But won’t you sign Tracy’s petition ? Would give us 19 and make us only 24,981 signatures short. We will have them any day now.
Thank you in advance.
unpasteurized unhomogenized
Raw milk is milk that has not been pasteurized, or treated in any way. It is sold raw, from the cow.
The Amish stand around the corner sells raw milk, with a permit from the PA Dept. of Agriculture.
http://www.visitphilly.com/restaurants-dining/philadelphia/reading-terminal-market/
It’s a good way to get TB, along with the entire catalog of pathogens. Basically, it’s playing Russian Roulette, only with a bottle of milk.
Just to be clear, you think that Tracy Fair, aka KenyaBornObamAcorn, one of the most truly pig gnorant of birthers is somehow an expert?
Excuse me whilst I howl with laughter.
I signed four times. What more do you want?
I guess Tracy doesn’t understand, because she’s a citizen of Monaco.
Raw milk mean unpasteurized.
Pasteurizing essentially cooks the milk.
Definitely not *superior* knowledge.
Beyond anything else, it’s also very poorly written.
What do you expect? Tracy is a citizen of the Vatican.
You’ve got until Dec. 13.
There already is someone with legal standing, Mitt Rmoney. He raised and spent close to $ 1 billion to run for office, yet appears completely uninterested in spending a few $ thousands to file a lawsuit that could, according to you, hand him the prize he sought. And he’s a Harvard Law grad (like the President). At this stage, he is certainly not afraid that suing would hurt him with the voters, since the election is over and the likelihood of his running for any office again is zero. He’s reputed to be a pretty sharp guy in the financial area, so if he won’t spend a few thousand $s to recoup an investment of $ 1 billion, that tells you what the odds are.
With her superior knowledge of the legal system, she must have won her ballot challenge in Maryland…oh, never mind.
When is she going to show us her birth certificate?
Yes, any day now.
You’re having a good run over at Orly’s blog.
What about the winkie? 😉 semicolon right parenthesis
Yep, that’s the one. She’s been going nuts on Amazon. As G observed re: Mario … could be working on the upcoming court date, but instead they get all frisky and hop online to start monologuing.
ProudWASP, a troll with a sense of humor! How refreshing!
What would the point of the petition be? THe concept of standing exists to save courts time, protect them from pointless exercises. It’s working well, and as intended. Gosh, maybe that’s why the conept has been in use for so long.
Birthers think standing was invented recently purely to frustrate their efforts?
ProudWASP, I am not going to sign any petition that (a) is not grounded in reality (b) seeks to overturn a clear electoral victory. That would be profoundly anti-democratic and un-American. The fact that you only have 19 signatures right now should also tell you that you are part of a very small group that is tilting at windmills.
Here is some ad copy for a PSA to help reach your goal. (With apologies to UNICEF and Alyssa Milano.)
3…2…1…
What would you do if there was a birther right in front of you sitting all alone crying and in pain from sanctions, near complete and utter failure from judicial rejection?
And what if all you had to do was type your name on a petition to make that birther smile?
This is that birther. And this is that moment.
Your two cents. It has never been easier to sell your soul. Go online and join Tracy F with the five, ten or more letters of your name. It’s only your reputation, and it means you’ll get these birthers the critical help they need to survive.
Emergency alien probes, vaccines for mind control, extra-fluoridated water, and chemtrails delivered every single day of the year to the birthers who could vanish without these other conspiracies to sustain them.
That’s what your soul buys. And that’s what we believe every birther deserves. We know you do, too. But you have to reach into your pocket, find something with which to poke yourself in the eyes, and make it happen. Please go online now, because that birther in front of you can’t wait another moment.
Won’t you sign your soul away before the inauguration?
There must be somebody with the ability to turn that into a video…
Perhaps a flashing POE’S LAW STRICTLY ENFORCED HERE symbol of some kind?
3…2…1…
“Hello, I’m Helen Hayes. I want to tell you about ‘Save the Birthers.’ For only fifty cents a day, you can help feed and clothe a birther.
Mario did not have a pair of Florsheims until he was 16. Orly went through southern California dumpsters.
Now you can help. With payroll deduction, you can buy wingtips and food for these sad, desperate people. It’s less than a cup of Starbucks.
You can call the number on the bottom of the screen, or you can change the channel.”
In WordPress, I think the code for “tongue in cheek” is “:razz:” 😛 I don’t know if it’s in this blog’s package, though.
(edit) Yes, it is.
Is that the letter hidden in plain sight ?
Laws are on paper sure, but this isn’t a paper wasp.
This one’s a mud dauber.
Always identify your troll wasps first.
A complete list of all the emoticons is available here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/visitor-guide/smilies-emoticons-and-useful-symbols/
I had always considered “:razz:” to be “tongue OUT of cheek.”
The court in Taitz v. Sebelius has awarded costs to the defendants. It remains to be seen how much Orly will have to cough up.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114634262/NDTX-ECF-26-2012-11-26-Taitz-v-Sebelius-Judgment-Costs-Taxed-Against-Taitz