Steve, if you want to discuss this further please email me or something. This back and forth often annoys people. If you want me to explain standing to you again, I'll do it. Just please stop spamming the thread.
If I ask you, "Hey Joe, what kind of car do you drive" and you respond, "I'm not going to answer that question if you ask it" then the question has not been answered.
That's not what happened. What happened was that the court found in specific cases that the people who tried to bring suit didn't have standing. We've discussed standing over and over. I'm sure no one wants to hear it again. Legally, when a court finds that someone doesn't have standing, that's the end of the issue. It has been legally resolved.
For those of you who want the punch line, here is an excerpt (the underlining is mine): Because standing is jurisdictional, lack of standing precludes a ruling on the merits. Thus, the district court erred in giving preclusive effect to the Telepresence judgment because its dismissal of Telepresence's complaint for lack of standing was not a final adjudication of the merits.
So let's recap:
HMTKSteve said:
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
Joe replied:
Well, let me check. Oh,here it is.That's a pretty final resolution.
Ouch! David beats Goliath! Goliath might consider a refresher course. Maybe he just stood out in the cold too long. Time to come inside!
If a case is dismissed for lack of standing, the court found that the person who tried to bring the case was legally barred from bringing such a case. The court asks whether the plaintiff/petitioner suffered an actual injury. Then the court asks whether the injury and the conduct the plaintiff/petitioner complains about are causally connected. Finally, the court asks whether a favorable decision will redress the injury.
The people in the "natural born" cases lacked standing because they couldn't show how they were aggrieved, they couldn't show a specific, personal, and legal interest in the "issue", and they couldn't show that their alleged injury would be redressed by a favorable decision.
Their cases were thus dismissed. They asked the Supreme Court to review their cases. The Supreme Court said, "No." Legally, that is the end for their cases. Legally, they have been resolved.
No one ever said that any substantive issues were decided. If one reads over every post regarding standing on this board, one will not find such a representation. However, as stated before, it is correct to say that these cases have been legally resolved.
No one ever said that any substantive issues were decided. If one reads over every post regarding standing on this board, one will not find such a representation.
Uh... Joe. You made that exact representation.
The recap again:
HMTKSteve said:
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
Joe replied:
Well, let me check. Oh,here it is.That's a pretty final resolution.
f a case is dismissed for lack of standing, the court found that the person who tried to bring the case was legally barred from bringing such a case. The court asks whether the plaintiff/petitioner suffered an actual injury. Then the court asks whether the injury and the conduct the plaintiff/petitioner complains about are causally connected. Finally, the court asks whether a favorable decision will redress the injury.
The people in the "natural born" cases lacked standing because they couldn't show how they were aggrieved, they couldn't show a specific, personal, and legal interest in the "issue", and they couldn't show that their alleged injury would be redressed by a favorable decision.
Their cases were thus dismissed. They asked the Supreme Court to review their cases. The Supreme Court said, "No." Legally, that is the end for their cases. Legally, they have been resolved.
No one ever said that any substantive issues were decided. If one reads over every post regarding standing on this board, one will not find such a representation. However, as stated before, it is correct to say that these cases have been legally resolved.
Very interesting. Thank you. I think the issue here is you're talking about the legal case itself, which are indeed settled by your definition and Steve is talking about the broader actual issue of Obama's birth place.
Also, just so you know, standing was not the only issue that resolved the Wrotnowski case as some have recently tried to say. If you read the ruling there, the Supreme Court had a request for an injunction before it. The lower court found that the plaintiff didn't have standing to ask for an injunction. The plaintiff went to the Supreme Court and applied for another injunction. The Supreme Court denied the request to issue an injunction. That's a case of, "May I?" "No, you may not." That was a final resolution.
Very interesting. Thank you. I think the issue here is you're talking about the legal case itself, which are indeed settled by your definition and Steve is talking about the broader actual issue of Obama's birth place.
Well, the thing there is that Obama might have been born on Krypton for all I care. The legal issue is dead as it has been resolved.
Well, the thing there is that Obama might have been born on Krypton for all I care. The legal issue is dead as it has been resolved.
I agree. But logically speaking all that's been proven is there is no one who could bring this kind of suit before the court system.
Personally I don't really care. He's lived in America his whole life, has America's interests at heart, and that's the essence of the natural born requirement.
Well, the thing there is that Obama might have been born on Krypton for all I care. The legal issue is dead as it has been resolved.
I agree. But logically speaking all that's been proven is there is no one who could bring this kind of suit before the court system.
Yes, but legally, that's all that matters. As I said, he could actually be from Krypton, but it wouldn't make these particular people's cases any more valid.
Personally I don't really care. He's lived in America his whole life, has America's interests at heart, and that's the essence of the natural born requirement.
Well, the thing there is that Obama might have been born on Krypton for all I care. The legal issue is dead as it has been resolved.
I agree. But logically speaking all that's been proven is there is no one who could bring this kind of suit before the court system.
Yes, but legally, that's all that matters.
So you agree with me that the question has not been answered?
Personally I don't really care. He's lived in America his whole life, has America's interests at heart, and that's the essence of the natural born requirement.
The SCOTUS decision in Wrotnowski was one sentence.
The only thing you can say with certainty is that the application was denied. Why? Because that's the only thing the SCOTUS said! You might surmise as to why, but that's all you'd be doing. You might also use this as an indication of the failure of future challenges. That's fine. But you can't create legal precedents for a substantive issue that was never addressed.
I agree. The issue is dead. I just won't misrepresent the law to further that argument.
Well, the thing there is that Obama might have been born on Krypton for all I care. The legal issue is dead as it has been resolved.
I agree. But logically speaking all that's been proven is there is no one who could bring this kind of suit before the court system.
Yes, but legally, that's all that matters.
So you agree with me that the question has not been answered?
Sigh. Once again, the question has been answered . . . in the negative . . . in the only place that matters.
Look, if you want to talk about this further, please just whisper or email me, because we're just going to go back and forth and people are going to complain.
Sigh. Once again, the question has been answered . . . in the negative . . . in the only place that matters.
Then please provide a link to where the question has been answered. So far you keep citing the cases that were not granted cert or were otherwise denied based on standing. You have not provided any links for a resolution to the question.
You brought this issue back up not me. Since you have made the claim you have to back it up.
You brought this issue back up not me. Since you have made the claim you have to back it up.
I haven't made any claim here except that you have a history of pointlessly criticizing Obama. You made a thread about these cases and you were very optimistic that they would be resolved in the way you wished. When they weren't resolved in the way you wished and people tried to explain why, you just kept spamming back that you didn't understand.
Let's assume that you're absolutely right and that Obama is not a natural born citizen. The cases were still resolved adversely to all of those plaintiffs. Those cases are dead.
Now, before those cases died, anyone who read about those cases knew that they were going to die. Even if Obama was born on Krypton, if the cases die they have no legal effect on him. So, making a thread about those cases and supporting those cases in spite of the fact that everyone knew they were going to die was pretty pointless. Claiming that Obama is not a natural born citizen is a pointless criticism because, even if you assume that he is not a natural born citizen, the people who have tried to make something out of it have all failed.
Pointless. That's not even taking into account all of the proof that people showed you in that thread that he is a natural born citizen. Take the obvious legal result of those cases, add it to the proof that people showed you that he is a natural born citizen, and you have a pretty pointless criticism. Similarly, criticizing the cost of the inauguration is pointless.
Well, let me check. Oh,here it is.That's a pretty final resolution.
Looks like a claim to me.
Y'know, if you want to consider that a claim, then it's an ordinary claim. I claim that the case was resolved. I have provided ordinary proof that it was resolved. I have proved that, legally, the case was resolved. The question was resolved in the only forum and in the only way in which it would have any actual effect. Any discussion about whether the underlying claim is true now that the case is dismissed is as pointless as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Your claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen is an extraordinary claim, especially in light of the cases being dismissed and all the evidence that he is a natural born citizen. That's your position and it is an extraordinary one. You need extraordinary proof to prove it.
Once again, the only reason it was even mentioned was to show that you have a history of pointless criticism. Your continued posts in this thread are just more proof of how pointless your criticisms can be. Your criticism of the cost of the inaugural is pointless. Now, I'm sure that, if you wait, Obama will do something that you won't like that you can actually make a pointed criticism about. Until then, why don't you quit the pointless criticism?
Well, let me check. Oh,here it is.That's a pretty final resolution.
Looks like a claim to me.
Y'know, if you want to consider that a claim, then it's an ordinary claim. I claim that the case was resolved. I have provided ordinary proof that it was resolved. I have proved that, legally, the case was resolved.
I did not claim the cases were not resolved. I claimed that the question of Natural Born Citizenship status was never answered.
Your claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen is an extraordinary claim, especially in light of the cases being dismissed and all the evidence that he is a natural born citizen. That's your position and it is an extraordinary one. You need extraordinary proof to prove it.
I make no such claim. My question is independent of Obama. I seek only to have the question of who is (or is not) a Natural born Citizen under the law answered.
At no point have you answered the question. Not a single time. Do you still claim that the question has been resolved?
Well, let me check. Oh,here it is.That's a pretty final resolution.
Looks like a claim to me.
Y'know, if you want to consider that a claim, then it's an ordinary claim. I claim that thecasewas resolved. I have provided ordinary proof that it was resolved. I have proved that, legally, the case was resolved.
I did not claim the cases were not resolved. I claimed that the question of Natural Born Citizenship status was never answered.
Your claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen is an extraordinary claim, especially in light of the cases being dismissed and all the evidence that he is a natural born citizen. That's your position and it is an extraordinary one. You need extraordinary proof to prove it.
I make no such claim. My question is independent of Obama. I seek only to have the question of who is (or is not) a Natural born Citizen under the law answered.
At no point have you answered the question. Not a single time. Do you still claim that the question has been resolved? Further proof of pointlessness.
I graciously invite you to whisper to me, email me, IM me, whatever. I have said what I have to say as many ways as I know how to say it. Once again (this must be about the tenth time I've said this), the question has been resolved in the only way that matters.
Please stop with the pointless spam. If you want to discuss it further, there are ways to do it without ruining everyone else's enjoyment of this thread. Email me and we'll talk. I promise.
Just admit to the truth, that the question has not been answered.
The problem with Joe is that his personal animus toward you trumps his rationality.
Let's put this issue to bed, since it's a complete waste of time.
What Joe should have said was: "I goofed. I shouldn't have implied that there was a ruling on the substantive question. My point was that all of the challenges have been thrown out. They didn't even make it out of the starting gate. No challenges appear on the horizon. Therefore, functionally, the issue is dead."
Just admit to the truth, that the question has not been answered.
If you'll read that thread again, you should see that many people besides me answered the question for you. The question has been answered to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. All you have to do is simply read the thread. Your refusal to accept it is unreasonable and pointless.
Just admit to the truth, that the question has not been answered.
If you'll read that thread again, you should see that many people besides me answered the question for you. The question has been answered to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. All you have to do is simply read the thread. Your refusal to accept it is unreasonable and pointless.
Then post the answer to the question or a link to the answer.
To take your idea a little further why not have the celebration last all year? Surely if a couple days of celebration is such a great thing for the nation then why not a couple of weeks or months?
I know this was a whole page ago, but I feel the idiocy of this statement hasn't been addressed. There's a point of diminishing returns. It is a BASIC economic concept. Hey, if having TWO sysadmins running the system helps our productivity so much, why not hire 100 of them? Because after a certain point, you don't get as much benefit out of the same increase.
The rest of your points have already been beaten to death, so I'm not going to belabor the point if you haven't grasped it by now.
We're sitting in Union Station waiting for the train home. We had a great time. You should have heard the thunderous cheers for Obama and the kettle drum-like sound of boos for Bush.
We even saw Marine 1 (I'm sure it had a different call sign at the time) take Bush away. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
We're sitting in Union Station waiting for the train home. We had a great time. You should have heard the thunderous cheers for Obama and the kettle drum-like sound of boos for Bush.
We even saw Marine 1 (I'm sure it had a different call sign at the time) take Bush away. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
You are a very angry man. Instead of focusing on the great positives of the day, you choose to dwell on anger over what has passed.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I observed much of it on television. It was exciting to see history being made. There were many things that were truly inspiring. There were also some quirky moments. The prayer went on for a long time.
You couldn't pay me to sit in the cold for hours on end for a non-existent view of the event. But to each his own. I feel the same way about Green Bay Packer fans. But they suffer several days a year. This is once every four years.
The whole time I couldn't really help but think... what in my life is going to change? Only time will tell, but the great irony is that in our two party system, for most people, the actual changes will be much less than they are led to believe. Of course some individuals will experience great change. But how much is America really going to change? If history is any indication, not much. I've got my fingers crossed, though.
Comments
Can you explain how a dismissal for lack of standing can be equated to a ruling on the substantive underlying claim?
Read and discuss.
For those of you who want the punch line, here is an excerpt (the underlining is mine):
Because standing is jurisdictional, lack of standing precludes a ruling on the merits. Thus, the district court erred in giving preclusive effect to the Telepresence judgment because its dismissal of Telepresence's complaint for lack of standing was not a final adjudication of the merits.
So let's recap:
HMTKSteve said: Joe replied: Ouch! David beats Goliath! Goliath might consider a refresher course. Maybe he just stood out in the cold too long. Time to come inside!
The people in the "natural born" cases lacked standing because they couldn't show how they were aggrieved, they couldn't show a specific, personal, and legal interest in the "issue", and they couldn't show that their alleged injury would be redressed by a favorable decision.
Their cases were thus dismissed. They asked the Supreme Court to review their cases. The Supreme Court said, "No." Legally, that is the end for their cases. Legally, they have been resolved.
No one ever said that any substantive issues were decided. If one reads over every post regarding standing on this board, one will not find such a representation. However, as stated before, it is correct to say that these cases have been legally resolved.
The recap again:
HMTKSteve said: Joe replied:
Personally I don't really care. He's lived in America his whole life, has America's interests at heart, and that's the essence of the natural born requirement.
It's not about his birth place either. It's about who is (and who is not) a natural born citizen.
The SCOTUS decision in Wrotnowski was one sentence.
The only thing you can say with certainty is that the application was denied. Why? Because that's the only thing the SCOTUS said! You might surmise as to why, but that's all you'd be doing. You might also use this as an indication of the failure of future challenges. That's fine. But you can't create legal precedents for a substantive issue that was never addressed.
I agree. The issue is dead. I just won't misrepresent the law to further that argument.
Look, if you want to talk about this further, please just whisper or email me, because we're just going to go back and forth and people are going to complain. I have no idea what you are talking about.
You brought this issue back up not me. Since you have made the claim you have to back it up.
Let's assume that you're absolutely right and that Obama is not a natural born citizen. The cases were still resolved adversely to all of those plaintiffs. Those cases are dead.
Now, before those cases died, anyone who read about those cases knew that they were going to die. Even if Obama was born on Krypton, if the cases die they have no legal effect on him. So, making a thread about those cases and supporting those cases in spite of the fact that everyone knew they were going to die was pretty pointless. Claiming that Obama is not a natural born citizen is a pointless criticism because, even if you assume that he is not a natural born citizen, the people who have tried to make something out of it have all failed.
Pointless. That's not even taking into account all of the proof that people showed you in that thread that he is a natural born citizen. Take the obvious legal result of those cases, add it to the proof that people showed you that he is a natural born citizen, and you have a pretty pointless criticism. Similarly, criticizing the cost of the inauguration is pointless.
Your claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen is an extraordinary claim, especially in light of the cases being dismissed and all the evidence that he is a natural born citizen. That's your position and it is an extraordinary one. You need extraordinary proof to prove it.
Once again, the only reason it was even mentioned was to show that you have a history of pointless criticism. Your continued posts in this thread are just more proof of how pointless your criticisms can be. Your criticism of the cost of the inaugural is pointless. Now, I'm sure that, if you wait, Obama will do something that you won't like that you can actually make a pointed criticism about. Until then, why don't you quit the pointless criticism?
At no point have you answered the question. Not a single time. Do you still claim that the question has been resolved?
At no point have you answered the question. Not a single time. Do you still claim that the question has been resolved?
Further proof of pointlessness.
I graciously invite you to whisper to me, email me, IM me, whatever. I have said what I have to say as many ways as I know how to say it. Once again (this must be about the tenth time I've said this), the question has been resolved in the only way that matters.
Please stop with the pointless spam. If you want to discuss it further, there are ways to do it without ruining everyone else's enjoyment of this thread. Email me and we'll talk. I promise.
Did you mean to say that the challenges have been resolved in the only forum that matters?
I can assure you that there are other ways that the question could have been resolved that would have mattered.
Let's put this issue to bed, since it's a complete waste of time.
What Joe should have said was:
"I goofed. I shouldn't have implied that there was a ruling on the substantive question. My point was that all of the challenges have been thrown out. They didn't even make it out of the starting gate. No challenges appear on the horizon. Therefore, functionally, the issue is dead."
That's all. Let's move on.
The rest of your points have already been beaten to death, so I'm not going to belabor the point if you haven't grasped it by now.
We even saw Marine 1 (I'm sure it had a different call sign at the time) take Bush away. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I observed much of it on television. It was exciting to see history being made. There were many things that were truly inspiring. There were also some quirky moments. The prayer went on for a long time.
You couldn't pay me to sit in the cold for hours on end for a non-existent view of the event. But to each his own. I feel the same way about Green Bay Packer fans. But they suffer several days a year. This is once every four years.
The whole time I couldn't really help but think... what in my life is going to change? Only time will tell, but the great irony is that in our two party system, for most people, the actual changes will be much less than they are led to believe. Of course some individuals will experience great change. But how much is America really going to change? If history is any indication, not much. I've got my fingers crossed, though.
Grumble.