I dare say you are full of it. Citing your American Conservative Principles, lady you are not a Conservative.Terri Tanna wrote:
"SADLY, you ignore that the United States Supreme Court has ADDRESSED and RESOLVED forever the Obama eligibility matter by its action in Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009) aff'd, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 663 (2010), upholding the President’s eligibility as a natural-born American citizen and rejecting as insubstantial your tired and constitutionally incorrect nonsense. RES JUDICATA.
"Why is it that you have failed so ignominiously to address that case?"
How many years did you clerk and for whom?
Do you know anything about the internal rules of the Supreme Court that REQUIRES (no discretion) the Justices to take any case that has been decided contrary to the United States Constitution?
The appellee's case considered carefully each and every fantasy contention of the "birthers" and rejected each and every one as totally without merit.
Tell the Class the learned constitutional treatise that in YOUR opinion merits study. Thank you.
Note that I am a lifelong, multi-generational ultra-conservative Republican with a highly regarded and widely published statement of "American Conservative Principles" -- none of which you can claim.
There was no default judgment before Judge Mahili (if that is the correct spelling). Please cite the Order declaring a default JUDGMENT. You embarrass yourself by your TOTAL IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.
DARE YOU TO STATE ANY ASPECT OF YOUR EDUCATION IN LAW. If you cannot, you must be dismissed as another ignorant and uneducated "birther." If you can, your credentials will be evaluated impartially by the Class. Thank you.
Admit that you are just a spine-less Progressive twit who's only acheivement is bullying folks by referring to them as your "Class" and talking down to them with some imaginary authoritive stance....what a feeble dismissive pompous ass who spews venumous attacks at anyone who doubts your false prince.
As to Judge Michael Malihi and the Georgia case, go google it yourself, I am sure you'll find some ignorant justification for his decision citing Kim Ark, 169, 1898. When the case had to do with Article II section 1 eligibility clause.