Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the frantic conservative effort to make a court case out of this WAS very poorly thought out and implemented.
Yeah... "frantic". Can't help but frame things in an emotional way, can you? The point is that the conservative approach was to work within the legal system, not go running around in the streets rioting and protesting. They actually attempted to use the courts to make their point, you know, like how our legal system is supposed to work. Which is in stark contrast to the liberal method of trying it in the court of public opinion, deliberately misrepresenting the other "sides" position, mocking that straw man, making sure to paint them in the worst light possible, going so far as to create an offensive label and threaten to apply it to anyone who dared even consider that they might just have a valid point, and otherwise doing everything they could, not to actually address whether we ought to have an actual process for determining whether an existing constitutional requirement to hold the highest office in our government has been met, but to just use the question itself as political fodder.
You honestly don't see a problem with the liberal methodology here? Do you get that the exact same form of belittling could be used to attack *any* position? There was nothing innately incorrect with the idea that we should maybe be able to ask that a person running for the office of president provide more than an electronic document via a third party on the internet. But that got lost in the "guilt by association" process used here, where anyone asking for that was labeled as a birther and assumed to be a part of the most nutty fringe possible.
You know, like you have done repeatedly to me. On this very forum. I have *never* argued that Obama was not a US citizen. Yet, because I agree that there is some validity to "the people" being able to require some greater form of documentation to establish natural born citizenship than what was presented, I'm lumped in with the craziest "birther" and my position on the issue is effectively ignored.
And yeah. I have a problem with that methodology. I have had a problem with it for a couple decades when the Left has done it. And I have a problem with it right now when Trump does it. The only real difference here is that I've been aware of how cheap and stupid this is for a long time, while many of you are just realizing it for the first time, since this is the first time a prominent member of the "other side" has actually used such tactics. And like I said earlier, you should be prepared to see more of this.
Quote:
"The Left" didn't really have anything to do with Orly Taitz harassing the courts and losing case after shoddy case.
Again. Stop with the emotional associations. The choice, by multiple judges, to dismiss every single case on standing, has zero to do with the qualifications, skills, or quality of the lawyer bringing the case. And that's yet more of the same problem. You're so focused on making fun of the person, that you're failing to see the actions by the courts, and how that affects precedent over time. It's not about who brought the case Joph. That you think so just shows how incredibly misaligned your thinking is on this.
Quote:
Justices Alito and Thomas both separately rejected motions by Taitz to overturn her frivolous lawsuit fines, for heaven's sake. Liberal Conspiracy!
Which is no way invalidates my position on this issue, or the position of
many conservatives who are honestly concerned that this process has weakened a provision in the constitution.