Orly Taitz thrown out of court again! Brrrraaaccckkkk!
Brutal ruling quashes birthers' suit
A federal judge in California has issued a brutal ruling dismissing a closely-watched "birthers'" lawsuit challenging President's Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. In a 30-page ruling issued Thursday morning, Judge David Carter used unusually withering language to throw out the suit prominent birthers' attorney Orly Taitz brought on behalf of a variety of military personnel and some third-party presidential and vice presidential candidates, such as Alan Keyes.
Carter, a Clinton appointee who sits in Orange County, attacked the motives of the military plaintiffs, suggesting they were simple trying to avoid duty in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. "This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve," the judge wrote. Keyes and the other candidates also got the back of the hand from Carter as he discussed whether any of the plaintiffs could show the individualized harm needed to pursue the suit. "Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter," the judge scoffed.
Ultimately, Carter found that while he might have had power to consider the suit before Obama's inauguration, the court could not do so now. "There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch," the judge wrote. "There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President....The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts."
Additionally from CBS news:
Carter says at another point that "the hearings have been interesting to say the least."
"Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning," he writes. "While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court." "[T]he Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves," writes Carter. "This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court."
Elsewhere in the document, Carter says that "[p]laintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved." "Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya," he writes.