| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama Inelligable to Run Says Judge Surrick!!! (Court Case Ruling) |
| 2008-10-24 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #27 I kinda wonder if Berg is meant as a "decoy." He comes forward with a bogus criticism of Zero and helps insulate him from more valid criticism. Also squeezes the oxygen out the room. I mean, come on. You don't think a 9/11 truther is really gonna do anything to help get McCain elected, do you? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-10-24 19:32 |
| #26 "Doesn't every citizen of this country have standing regarding the President, Iblis?" Not according to the DNC. Personally, I think anyone should be able to bring a suit like this, but it's not up to me. From the judge's point of view, this would be an easy way to get rid of the case without ever having to hear it on the merits, and without having the MSM and Democratic Party ruin your life and career. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-10-24 19:00 |
| #25 Phil Berg is a Democrat and big time Hillary supporter. That possibility occurred to me right after I posted my comment. I shoulda figured. When you Google Phil Berg he seems to have supported Hillary and claims to be the former deputy attorney general in PA. Other sources make him appear to be some kind of political gadfly. Whatever, I suspect his so called lack of standing would be a stock legal ploy to discredit the plaintiff. What should matter, though, is whether the complaint has any standing and who cares about the plaintiff? I mean, where is the birth certificate? Simple question but there still doesn't seem to be an answer. But another interesting point is that it seems the judge is a Clinton appointee. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-10-24 18:57 |
| #24 Doesn't every citizen of this country have standing regarding the President, Iblis? If not, why not (other than the obvious "shut up and take what we dish out" from the Left)? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-10-24 17:04 |
| #23 Just so no one gets their hopes up, the ruling will probably be a dismissal of the case for lack of standing. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-10-24 16:32 |
| #22 as of 3:17 local time @ americasright website, the ruling will NOT be today. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-10-24 16:00 |
| #21 Thanks Richard. I know, more or less, what the legalities are from my Poli Sci days. My question, poorly phrased I admit, was more to the MoFW point. What would the Dems try and do? Since the ballots are set would the DNC be able to get its act together enough to make a push for a Hillary write-in? How? My mention of Joe was purely snark since I can't imagine any professional Dem wanting to come within a mile of him. Might this cause a total explosion of the party with the Zeros going anti-Hilly and pushing a Joe or a Nancy or a Teddy? My guess is the McCain would win a landslide due to screwed up write ins if nothing else. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-10-24 15:42 |
| #20 Here's a video link to Phil Berg explaining the case: http://www.americanpatrol.com/MISCNEWS/2006-UP/ELECTIONS/2008/OBAMA/OctSurpriseVideo081012.html |
| Posted by: Intrinsicpilot 2008-10-24 14:25 |
| #19 IIUC, the names printed on the ballot are fixed at this point. Any alternative candidate would have to be a write-in. However, as a practical matter, when the electoral college meets, the delegates could vote their conscience. If no one can get a majority there, it will be up to the democrat controlled house and senate. It'll be Hillary if Obama withdraws and McCain doesn't win. |
| Posted by: Minister of funny walks 2008-10-24 13:59 |
| #18 AlanC, if Obama is disqualified, then it's all up to the DNC. They can do whatever they want. It's their party and they make the rules. So, they could go with Joe, put someone else in the hot seat, or even do nothing. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2008-10-24 13:53 |
| #17 When the order does come down, it will probably be here, among the first places: http://www.americasright.com/ Rumor has it that the judge may come down with the order today, so I'd check this site every few hours. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-10-24 13:37 |
| #16 I've read that Mr. Berg used to be a state attorney general or something -- I don't remember the details. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-10-24 13:31 |
| #15 "I have to wonder why the Clintons didn't get into this." Phil Berg is a Democrat and big time Hillary supporter. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-10-24 13:28 |
| #14 So, in other words.....it's not worth the paper it's not printed on? (sorry, couldn't resist....) |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2008-10-24 13:27 |
| #13 EU6305, there is a third possiblility. |
| Posted by: KBK 2008-10-24 13:26 |
| #12 I have to wonder why the Clintons didn't get into this. To me that means they are either not as smart as they think they are or else they looked into it and found there is absolutely nothing to it. I like to believe the former but it seems too good to be true. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-10-24 12:40 |
| #11 Thank you cingold. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-10-24 12:04 |
| #10 AGAIN, IT IS NOT AN ORDER ENTERED BY THE JUDGE It is just the "proposed order" Berg filed along with his motion for summary judgment. It is the order Berg hopes the Judge will enter. Virtually all federal court filing are now done online, in pdf format. That is what is being linked here. http://dockets.justia.com/ is a website that promotes online access to court documents. As re the FEC, I haven't read the motion, but the title indicates that the FEC thinks Berg filed in the wrong court. The number of filings in this case in such a short period of time is pretty impressive. Not sure where the case is headed, but it should be fund to watch. The link to the exact Justia page listing the filings in the Berg vs Obama case is http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/ |
| Posted by: cingold 2008-10-24 12:02 |
| #9 Thanks cingold. Looks like someone at the FEC is not happy with Mr. Berg (motion 24). |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-10-24 11:51 |
| #8 Does anyone have an insight w/r to the justia.com site that the pdf resides on? Clicked through a bit and it looks legit, looks like a legal resource site. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-10-24 11:47 |
| #7 It is what is known as a "proposed order." It is filed along with a motion to let the Judge know what you would like the order he issues to look like. The most recent docket entries in that case are: #26 Filed 10/22/2008 MOTION for Order for Expedited Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PHILIP J. BERG #27 Filed 10/22/2008 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PHILIP J. BERG #21 Filed 10/21/2008 MOTION for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions - Admitted filed by PHILIP J. BERG #22 Filed 10/21/2008 MOTION for Order Expediting Ruling on Plaintiffs Motion Deeming Plaintiffs Request for Admissions Admitted filed by PHILIP J. BERG #24 Filed 10/21/2008 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION #25 Filed 10/21/2008 MOTION for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted filed by PHILIP J. BERG |
| Posted by: cingold 2008-10-24 11:41 |
| #6 Does Biden become the candidate? Ackkkk! |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2008-10-24 11:30 |
| #5 "This is not the Barry Soetoro I used to know." |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-10-24 11:24 |
| #4 Quagmire! |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-10-24 11:21 |
| #3 I'm right with you on waiting, but DAMN, if we thought 2000 was wild this would top it by an order of magnitude if it went through. I expect that there has to, at the very least, be some sort of emergency Supreme Court ruling. But, just for fantasy sake what the hell would happen if Barry IS disqualified? Does Biden become the candidate? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-10-24 11:19 |
| #2 I'm waiting for Mike to give his opinion. |
| Posted by: tipper 2008-10-24 11:06 |
| #1 When I start seeing it on Foxnews, I'll rejoice. Until then it is smoke. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-10-24 11:01 |