Friday, December 23, 2011

THE COURT: ANY CHALLENGE TO OBAMA WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL!...WHAT A JOKE!...HOLDER WAS APPOINTED BY OBAMA AND HOLDER WAS PUT THERE SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT OBAMA!!!!

'Birther' bid to challenge Obama's right to be president rejected

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01156f87420d970c-500wi
Opponents of President Obama can't take him to court to answer their claims that he wasn't born in the United States, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
None of the dozens of so-called "birthers" who filed a federal lawsuit against Obama has the right to sue the president because none has suffered any injury that the court could heal with a ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in upholding a lower court's dismissal of their lawsuit.
Among those challenging Obama's eligibility for the presidency is Wiley Drake, a Buena Park minister who once called on his First Southern Baptist flock to pray for Obama's death, and the American Independent Party's 2008 presidential candidate, Alan Keyes.
The 9th Circuit judges said that even political candidates who argued that they were unfairly disadvantaged by the competition from someone ineligible to run for the office would have had a case only if they had brought it before the election, not after.
The birthers converged on the 9th Circuit's Pasadena courthouse in May to air their grievances against the president, whom they contend falsified his Hawaii birth certificate and was actually born in Africa.
The judges noted at the hearing as well as in their ruling Thursday that, aside from the plaintiffs' lack of standing, the challenge of Obama's legitimacy to serve as president is a political question beyond any federal court's power to decide. Any legal challenge would have to be brought by the U.S. attorney general, the court said.

2 comments:

  1. "None of the dozens of so-called "birthers" who filed a federal lawsuit against Obama has the right to sue the president because none has suffered any injury that the court could heal with a ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said"

    This ruling is such a crock. If nothing else, the court should removed usurper Obama so that the plaintiffs would not have to run against the usurper again in 2012. Obama is not the president. According to Constitutional expert Dr. Edwin Vieira, we're just waiting for someone to arrest him to end his imposture. "Just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office.” So pray tell, why is it that the 3 federal judges on the 9th Circuit in Kalifornia could not start the ball rolling on removing the usurper?

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

    We can only hope that these judges are impeached.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Know what's kind of funny about this?

    These federal judges think that they're going along to get along to be part of the legacy of Obama, making the oceans fall and all that BS. But after Obama bankrupts this country and the US crashes and burns, these judges will be getting paid with worthless federal reserve dollars, if they're getting paid at all. It's been rumored that Obama has billions in banks outside the US. So after America crashes and burns, Obama can go back to his home country of Kenya or he can go hide with his tyrant friends. But when Obama's legacy is dystopia and everything becomes Mad Max-like, Obama is not going to be around to protect these judges. And they will look like the rich one-percenters to the Occupy California crowd who will be rioting in the streets after everything turns to sh*t. Karma is a bitch.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.