Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

direstraits posted:

Condie loves to correct others.  But, gets prissy when others correct him.

This suit will probably be dismissed as those suing have no standing -- can't show how they would be harmed.  Remember Trump stated he could sue because he had standing.

_____

We will see whether YOUR opinion of standing prevails.  The court could rule that any citizen who is registered to vote has standing to object to someone running for an office for which said citizen is qualified to vote, but who is not constitutionally qualified to do so, but others see it differently as below:

.http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/15/lawsuit-questions-ted-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president/

Last edited by Contendahh
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie loves to correct others.  But, gets prissy when others correct him.

This suit will probably be dismissed as those suing have no standing -- can't show how they would be harmed.  Remember Trump stated he could sue because he had standing.

_____

We will see whether YOUR opinion of standing prevails.  The court could rule that any citizen who is registered to vote has standing to object to someone running for an office for which said citizen is qualified to vote, but who is not constitutionally qualified to do so, but others see it differently as below:

.http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/15/lawsuit-questions-ted-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president/

Contenduhh, the courts shot the birthers contesting Obama down for exactly the reason I stated for those supporting Trump. Have you forgotten already?  There are some treatments for that, now.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie loves to correct others.  But, gets prissy when others correct him.

This suit will probably be dismissed as those suing have no standing -- can't show how they would be harmed.  Remember Trump stated he could sue because he had standing.

_____

We will see whether YOUR opinion of standing prevails.  The court could rule that any citizen who is registered to vote has standing to object to someone running for an office for which said citizen is qualified to vote, but who is not constitutionally qualified to do so, but others see it differently as below:

.http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/15/lawsuit-questions-ted-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president/

Contenduhh, the courts shot the birthers contesting Obama down for exactly the reason I stated for those supporting Trump. Have you forgotten already?  There are some treatments for that, now.

___

Not "exactly the same reason." Too bad you can't see the difference, but I can accept your cognitive limitations as impairing your analytical capabilities.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Condie loves to correct others.  But, gets prissy when others correct him.

This suit will probably be dismissed as those suing have no standing -- can't show how they would be harmed.  Remember Trump stated he could sue because he had standing.

_____

We will see whether YOUR opinion of standing prevails.  The court could rule that any citizen who is registered to vote has standing to object to someone running for an office for which said citizen is qualified to vote, but who is not constitutionally qualified to do so, but others see it differently as below:

.http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/15/lawsuit-questions-ted-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president/

Contenduhh, the courts shot the birthers contesting Obama down for exactly the reason I stated for those supporting Trump. Have you forgotten already?  There are some treatments for that, now.

___

Not "exactly the same reason." Too bad you can't see the difference, but I can accept your cognitive limitations as impairing your analytical capabilities.

The circumstances are almost identical.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×