The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - One less distraction

(CNN) - President Barack Obama may have one less problem to worry about.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed Obama is ineligible to be president because he isn't a bona fide U.S. citizen.

The lawsuit represented the claim by the so-called "birthers" movement that Obama was not born in Hawaii - despite a birth certificate to the contrary - or that if he was, his citizenship was invalidated by living overseas as a child.

In a 30-page ruling, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California said his court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on a case intended to unseat a sitting president.

Carter's ruling said the plaintiffs were trying to persuade him to "disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president."

"The process for removal of a sitting president - removal for any reason - is within the province of Congress, not the courts," the ruling said.

Carter's ruling also noted that the plaintiffs "have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution."

"Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic," the ruling said. "Quite the contrary, this court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."

Judge David O. Carter of California said his court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on a case intended to unseat a sitting president.

FarSky:

It's not an issue of Right or Left or a stolen election. The issue was a non-issue until Obama's lawyers said in Court, "No Citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the eligibility of a sitting president." Then it became a major issue. Orly Taitz is a hack and a whack job. Most of the people who are "birthers" are hacks and whack jobs. But the standing issue is something else entirely.

We need to face facts - racism plays a part in the opposition to this president. No, it does not play a part for everyone who opposes him, nor does it have the same level of contribution across the boards. But it *does* play a part. Hate group involvement is up, racial violence is up, threats against the president have increased, and racial tensions are pretty high right now. I think it's an act of blindness to ignore that.

Monte wrote:

Funny how it doesn't play a part in the support for him either. Or at least, according to some.

Why does disagreeing with the President and his politics always seem to come back to an issue of race?

I notice this stuff in regular life too...in certain circles you have to be careful who you disagree with because it will be misconstrued as racism. Consequently, in some arenas, you dare not disagree at all for fear of being labeled a rascist by default....just because you have a different opinion than a black person does not make you racist!!!
I deal with this in the South every. single. day. It's incredibly annoying.

Rafael wrote:

Monte wrote:

Funny how it doesn't play a part in the support for him either. Or at least, according to some.

I don't really understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here. Is it racist for white voters to vote for white candidates?

That doesn't mean that any criticism is racism. *This* attack - the conspiracy theories that drive the so-called Birther movement, however, are driven at least in part by his race, IMO.

Rafael wrote:

Monte wrote:

Funny how it doesn't play a part in the support for him either. Or at least, according to some.

I don't really understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here. Is it racist for white voters to vote for white candidates?

Author:	Aizle [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:26 am ]
Post subject:	One less distraction
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... esident-2/ Quote: (CNN) - President Barack Obama may have one less problem to worry about. A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed Obama is ineligible to be president because he isn't a bona fide U.S. citizen. The lawsuit represented the claim by the so-called "birthers" movement that Obama was not born in Hawaii - despite a birth certificate to the contrary - or that if he was, his citizenship was invalidated by living overseas as a child. In a 30-page ruling, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California said his court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on a case intended to unseat a sitting president. Carter's ruling said the plaintiffs were trying to persuade him to "disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president." "The process for removal of a sitting president - removal for any reason - is within the province of Congress, not the courts," the ruling said. Carter's ruling also noted that the plaintiffs "have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution." "Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic," the ruling said. "Quite the contrary, this court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."

Author:	Khross [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: One less distraction
That's pretty poor reporting, since it doesn't say which lawsuit was dismissed. There are still several pending, one of which was granted a hearing in January.

Author:	FarSky [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:40 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Judge David O. Carter of California said his court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on a case intended to unseat a sitting president. And because he simply dismissed it, we're constantly going to hear the nattering from here to eternity. sigh This is the Right's "Bush stole the election," isn't it?

Author:	Khross [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: One less distraction
FarSky: It's not an issue of Right or Left or a stolen election. The issue was a non-issue until Obama's lawyers said in Court, "No Citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the eligibility of a sitting president." Then it became a major issue. Orly Taitz is a hack and a whack job. Most of the people who are "birthers" are hacks and whack jobs. But the standing issue is something else entirely.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: One less distraction
Khross wrote: FarSky: It's not an issue of Right or Left or a stolen election. The issue was a non-issue until Obama's lawyers said in Court, "No Citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the eligibility of a sitting president." Then it became a major issue. Orly Taitz is a hack and a whack job. Most of the people who are "birthers" are hacks and whack jobs. But the standing issue is something else entirely. An excellent summation; one that will sadly be lost on those most needing to understand the issue. That said, the basic question of whether Obama was born in this country is almost as silly as claiming that Bush somehow engineered the 2000 election to come down to a few counties in Florida and then arranged for those counties to go his way.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

One less distraction https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=705	Page 1 of 1

Author:	FarSky [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: One less distraction
Khross wrote: FarSky: It's not an issue of Right or Left or a stolen election. The issue was a non-issue until Obama's lawyers said in Court, "No Citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the eligibility of a sitting president." Then it became a major issue. Orly Taitz is a hack and a whack job. Most of the people who are "birthers" are hacks and whack jobs. But the standing issue is something else entirely. I fully believe that is the crux of the issue for you, and for many who have a deeper understanding of politics. I just don't believe that's the prevailing sentiment behind the vast majority of people pushing the issue. [Note: I also don't believe it has anything (well, for most) to do with race. I think it's just a matter of "Hey, a loophole! Let's get this guy we don't agree with kicked out of office on a technicality!"]

Author:	Monte [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:50 am ]
Post subject:
I obviously disagree with Khross and FarSky. For Khross, I see his lawyers argument as the argument they must make. When you are an attourney, you don't just make the arguments people might want to hear. If standing is in question, according to the law, then you make that argument first. As for Race, I think that has a great deal to do with it. We can't seperate what Khross refers to as the bigger question from the basic question being put forth by those going to court. They are claiming that the President has committed fraud and that he was not born in this country. That basic case is absolutely essential to the overall question. Without it, there is no other question. The people bringing up these suits, in my opinion, are doing so at least in part because Barak Obama is black. Also, because he is a liberal. Also, because he is a very popular liberal democrat. However, I do not think you can entirely ignore the racial element. The core message is that Obama is "The Other" - that he's from Kenya, that he's not a "Real American" (as Palin said during the campaign). This racial element, in fact, was prevalent throughout the presidential campaign and even the primary season. They first tried to say he was a muslim, that his wife was a radical black militant, among several other clearly racist stereotypes. It hasn't stopped since the election. Now they are claiming he's not American at all, that he's from Kenya. The protesters at the tea party events had a ton of signs and slogans that were overtly and not quite so overtly racist. We need to face facts - racism plays a part in the opposition to this president. No, it does not play a part for everyone who opposes him, nor does it have the same level of contribution across the boards. But it does play a part. Hate group involvement is up, racial violence is up, threats against the president have increased, and racial tensions are pretty high right now. I think it's an act of blindness to ignore that.

Author:	Rafael [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: We need to face facts - racism plays a part in the opposition to this president. No, it does not play a part for everyone who opposes him, nor does it have the same level of contribution across the boards. But it does play a part. Hate group involvement is up, racial violence is up, threats against the president have increased, and racial tensions are pretty high right now. I think it's an act of blindness to ignore that. Funny how it doesn't play a part in the support for him either. Or at least, according to some.

Author:	LadyKate [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Why does disagreeing with the President and his politics always seem to come back to an issue of race? I notice this stuff in regular life too...in certain circles you have to be careful who you disagree with because it will be misconstrued as racism. Consequently, in some arenas, you dare not disagree at all for fear of being labeled a rascist by default....just because you have a different opinion than a black person does not make you racist!!! I deal with this in the South every. single. day. It's incredibly annoying.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: One less distraction
I'd love to see the statistics that establish any of these various race-related ills are "up".

Author:	darksiege [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:
None can be provided because he is making **** up

Author:	Monte [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Rafael wrote: Monte wrote: We need to face facts - racism plays a part in the opposition to this president. No, it does not play a part for everyone who opposes him, nor does it have the same level of contribution across the boards. But it does play a part. Hate group involvement is up, racial violence is up, threats against the president have increased, and racial tensions are pretty high right now. I think it's an act of blindness to ignore that. Funny how it doesn't play a part in the support for him either. Or at least, according to some. I don't really understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here. Is it racist for white voters to vote for white candidates?

Author:	Monte [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
LadyKate wrote: Why does disagreeing with the President and his politics always seem to come back to an issue of race? Who said that it does? No one is saying that every disagreement with the president is racism, except fake news outlets and commentators that want to try and avoid responsibility for their actual racism. However, there is clearly a racist element in a lot of the criticism of the president, especially the most vitrioloic and intense criticism. I've seen it first hand, I've witnessed it at Tea Party rallies (the last one I meandered through I counted the N word used by angry white people no less than 14 times. The number of overtly and subvertly racist signs was kind of alarming, as well). The election of a black president has really brought the racists up out of the shadows. That doesn't mean that any criticism is racism. This attack - the conspiracy theories that drive the so-called Birther movement, however, are driven at least in part by his race, IMO. Quote: I notice this stuff in regular life too...in certain circles you have to be careful who you disagree with because it will be misconstrued as racism. Consequently, in some arenas, you dare not disagree at all for fear of being labeled a rascist by default....just because you have a different opinion than a black person does not make you racist!!! I deal with this in the South every. single. day. It's incredibly annoying. And I encountered actual racism in the south with alarming frequency (and outside the south, for that matter). That hasn't changed since the time I was a kid living in TN with my father. It's still something I encounter in Texas (anti black and anti hispanic being the most common thing to hear). As for those who believe that hate groups are not on the rise, that radicalism is not increasing, etc, please feel free to go to http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp and see for yourself.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: Rafael wrote: Monte wrote: We need to face facts - racism plays a part in the opposition to this president. No, it does not play a part for everyone who opposes him, nor does it have the same level of contribution across the boards. But it does play a part. Hate group involvement is up, racial violence is up, threats against the president have increased, and racial tensions are pretty high right now. I think it's an act of blindness to ignore that. Funny how it doesn't play a part in the support for him either. Or at least, according to some. I don't really understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here. Is it racist for white voters to vote for white candidates? Well, considering you're the one inventing new definitions for racist around here, I think you're the more useful person to answer this question. The rest of our answers could be answered with a dictionary and some common sense. You, on the other hand, I have no idea how you would answer this question.

Author:	Rafael [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Yes, Lydiaa proves it is common sense that prevails on the issue, even for someone who isn't a citizen. Yet, when that point is made about Othering him (thanks, Khross) by using such a label, people scream and whine about the historic precedent it sets. But this is circular logic, because it's only precedent if you first concede that color is such a significant factor. You'd know what would be really historic? A president who upheld his Oath to defend The Constitution.

Author:	DFK! [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: One less distraction
Several posts in this thread were reported. After conferring with the others, we decided that none of the items reported warranted any censure. Some of the statements were crass or snarky or trolling. Trolling isn't on the rules list.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Lydiaa [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: Rafael wrote: Monte wrote: We need to face facts - racism plays a part in the opposition to this president. No, it does not play a part for everyone who opposes him, nor does it have the same level of contribution across the boards. But it does play a part. Hate group involvement is up, racial violence is up, threats against the president have increased, and racial tensions are pretty high right now. I think it's an act of blindness to ignore that. Funny how it doesn't play a part in the support for him either. Or at least, according to some. I don't really understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here. Is it racist for white voters to vote for white candidates? If it's based on the colour of his skin, yes, just as it's racist for black voters to vote for black candidates purely cause he's black. Racial tension is high simply because you chose to put race into everything. Don't agree with what he's doing? RACIST! Want to see the issue of his birth certificate go to court? RACIST! Criticizing the president in media? RACIST! Seriously that’s skewing your statistics on the issue. >.< You want to stop the racial tension? then stop labelling him by the title "The first BLACK president". Let him not be judged by the color of his skin but by the content of charecter.

Author:	Beryllin [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: One less distraction
Well said, Lydiaa. Bravo!