>>Yes emphatically denied. But never underestimate the ability of the Supreme Court to find a penumbra emanating from the constitution that whispers into their ear and counsels the politically correct solution.<<
If the Supreme Court does that, breaking with precedent and the twenty-five (25) Supreme Court cases known SO FAR to cite that precedent-setter, civil war and a rerun of the American Revolution are sure to break out.
I fear for the life of Judge Malihi and/or his family. He definitely didn't take the safer fork in the road. It took great courage for him to dismiss Obama's motion.
>>Still, go Orly!<<
I didn't realize until last night that that Georgia eligibility challenge comprises three individual cases now coalesced into one. I probably read it somewhere earlier but was too excited to notice. The judge consolidated suits brought by Orly, Van Irion, and J. Mark Hatfield. The Hatfield name rings a bell (other than linked with McCoy), but not Irion's.
Did you read the article at L 659354? It quotes a number of Irion's comments and is very much worth reading because of the reason, regarding the Constitution, in the comment (at L) below the article's introductory paragraph(s). That article also says:
<Malihi agreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that Georgia Election Code mandates “every candidate for federal and state office” shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought . . . .
Malihi said, “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written … Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden.”>
Can you imagine what America would be like today if the Supreme Court judges faithfully adhered to Malihi's standard?
>> . . . The Hatfield name rings a bell (other than linked with McCoy), but not Irion's.<<
He's an attorney and a Georgia state representative . . . that probably enhances his standing.
>>Did you read the article at L 659354? . . .<<
Just did. Irion made very good arguments that were accepted by the judge. Given the SC definition of Natural Born Citizen and this challenge I don't see how this can not go to the SC or how the SC can decide other than Obama is not qualified to run for president (unless of course they ignore the precedent). Hello Hillary.
>>He's [J. Mark Hatfield] an attorney and a Georgia state representative . . . that probably enhances his standing.<<
It might with judges other than Malihi, though remember even presidential candidate Alan Keyes lacked 'standing' according to the judge who didn't want Obama to lose _his_ standing. But I think with Judge Malihi every Georgia citizen has standing in this issue. I don't believe Malihi can be bought, but I wonder how he'll stand up to threats, which are sure to come, if not from O, then from one or more of O's zealous apostles.
>>Just did. Irion made very good arguments that were accepted by the judge. Given the SC definition of Natural Born Citizen and this challenge I don't see how this can not go to the SC or how the SC can decide other than Obama is not qualified to run for president (unless of course they ignore the precedent). Hello Hillary.<<
Ugh! And our only truly conservative candidate is Perry, who the media is pretending does not exist. This election cycle is HUGELY disappointing so far. Hillary has machinery behind her.
Hillary notwithstanding, you'll like what Doug Book has to say about the Georgia case.