Another one bites the dust
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit earlier today issued a decision affirming District Judge Gibney’s dismissal of a ballot challenge by Mr. Tisdale against Barack Obama in Virginia, on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen.
Judge Gibney wrote in his decision:
It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.
Today, in a terse unpublished order, the three-judge federal panel found no reversible error in the District Court decision and affirmed it. In what was news to me, we find that in addition to Tisdale’s pro se appeal, the court also accepted an amicus brief in the case from Mario Apuzzo.
Read more:
Tisdale affirmed:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/dailyopinions/opinion.pdf/121124.U.pdf
Good find. Thank for sharing. Another birther appeal easily bites the dust…
” . . . the court also accepted an amicus brief in the case from Mario Apuzzo.”
Yes, but meretricious Mario’s severe reading comprehension disability will prevent him from ever understanding what “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” means.
Birther bigot blinders will leave them baffled.
Droppin’ faster than flies!
And yet another precedent which rejects the two-citizen parent argument.
*Insert “Mario falls into a pit”/”collides with a goomba” fanfare*
I look forward to the Meretricious One’s 200-page-long blog post to explain to his sheeple the secret meaning of the above statement and how it is another great victory for the cause.
My money is on “another 150 page lawsuit that rehashes the same arguments, laced with Orlyesque ‘if the court disagrees, it is committing treason’ bits”.
Maybe the putz will sell secret decoder rings.
I received the comment from Mr. Tisdale through the site comment form:
Any idea who sent it? Tisdale?
That makes 141 to 0. Great record birthers! 😀
Gee, where’s John and YuTube to weigh in on these great victories?
That was the name on it. I edited the comment above to reflect that.
While I wouldn’t mind the Supreme Court addressing issues in this case, the lack of standing probably robs them of jurisdiction. In any case, the fact that this case is not distinguished from the other cases that the Supreme Court declined to hear, suggests that they won’t hear this on either.
I’ll certainly “stay tuned.”
What’s a birther voter to do? Two candidates for President and neither is qualified. Quite the conundrum.
I’m not so sure about that “nothing more.” I think someone is a natural born citizen who is native born of three parents. That happens these days.
I don’t think standing is much of an issue here. The defense argued standing in their brief on appeal, but the Circuit Court did not even mention it in their order. The Circuit Court simply affirmed the District Court’s order.
The District Court had dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The claims failed precisely because the two-citizen-parent theory is wrong on the law.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/tisdale_dc_order.pdf
Theoretically, U.S. Supreme Court could grant certiorari under their Rule 10(c):
“a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_10
Will they? Not a chance. You might think a Supreme Court decision affirming Obama’s eligibility would be a nice thing to have, but during the time between the grant of cert and the decision, there would be be doubts about the legitimacy of the government.