FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
MEDIA Gloating over Obama's Eligibility Defeat Stranger than SCOTUS Anti- Natural Born Citizen?
Amidst the hoop-la and media frenzy surrounding the debates is the 'stone-cold-silence' that something really horrific has just happened in the United States Supreme Court. You don't have to be a Birther, only a part of the silent majority to understand this.
The media has covered very well over the last four years the reasons that the eligibility challenge to Obama's qualifications has failed, and the biggest reason if you were paying any attention at all, was that 'standing' had not been fulfilled. There was not a presidential candidate in the race, in the same party, suffering a loss because Obama was running under a different set of rules and in such was cheating in the race within his own party, and in such depriving eligible qualified candidates of everything he was siphoning off, including campaign contributions, free media spot-lights, and a framed window to the general electorate that was skewed in fraud and forgery.
All the cases that were trumpeted with horns and fanfare by the Media were dismissed over something even Birthers came to grasp as understandable with the three legs of standing once again if you missed they are:
- Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
- Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
- Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
'Staying in the race and competitively making commercials, having everything necessary to compete as a campaign for President isn't cheap", says Cody Robert Judy, "We all recall John Huntsman getting out at 12 million dollars in the middle of January, Rick Santorum in April after 23 million, so we understand fundraising cost money, commercials cost money, staff, web sites, travel, the list goes on and on and on. So I hope people understand the level of commitment it has taken to stay in and here it is October, with our last 3 commercials being made just a couple of weeks ago. As a Campaign we had to be able to present ourselves ready and able to step in and be competitive with Mitt Romney at any time a Court made a decision."
The campaign was actually forced to go on because of the case in the United States Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 12-5276 appealed all the way through the Supreme Courts of New Hampshire and Georgia early in the presidential contest. Every Court we legitimately gave the benefit of the doubt to even if it was simply that through the State Supreme Courts the hand off might be made to the United States Supreme Court to ultimately decide a federal election question for all 50 states.
When Cody was asked if he thought the Monday decision to deny his Petition for Certiorari was made with an informed Court rather then glossed over or thrown in the same category of "no standing", Cody re-iterated, " I actually have no official way to calculate that. I know Analyst are in charge of breaking cases down for the Justices and there are so many cases in conference on those days my guess is they are more or less debating the ones that are fed to them, and I actually could clearly understand how for instance my case and Weldon v. Obama's case could be thrown into the same pot of 'no standing', but that case and mine are so far apart in the calculations and losses that our standing is clearly not even in the same category or realm as far as losses due to Obama's eligibility. WELDON was not running a presidential campaign, how could they be even close to the same financial scale or loss and injury?"
"If that's what happened, I can understand it, and I could understand how that could happen, but it clearly doesn't represent justice, or, the standing argument put to rest and Obama's eligibility considered with the evidence we had supporting fraud and forgery, which ultimately means a fraud committed with every single vote placed for him,or campaign dollar contributed."
"I actually think the media would be writing BIG STORIES and celebrating the fact that Obama has won the eligibility question without hiding behind the 'standing' argument. That in itself has been shouted upon the housetops of the anti-birther blogs as a calculation that in fact the United States Constitution has been changed without the legislative branch having to vote on the approval by 2/3rds majority."
" This is big news, the "natural born citizen" qualification clause of the United States Constitution has been really officially changed by this precedent with no standing dismissal coming in between the argument and the decision."
Anti-Birthers have blasted such things as " You see it takes more than 'standing!'", so they have celebrated this big time. The Main Stream Media I would think would grab a hold of this and tell it to every house-hold in America.
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the decision, and the equivalent of the loss, one must quantify the mentality to hide or keep secret the decision of the United States Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court in denying my Petition for Certiorari. This is really an embarrassment to the anti-Birthers celebration, and that's why if one suspects its legitimate and the Justices were informed of the differences of our cases, a full and intelligent decision has been made and basically ceded the qualification of president understood in the Constitution which has not happened in legislative history!
Does anyone understand here that the Constitution has been re-written by the Justices with this decision? That's the magnitude of this decision. Now I didn't think the Constitution could be re-written by the United States Supreme Court under the laws prohibiting construction, but that has obviously happened also. There is no reason any foreign ruler cannot come over to America and one day be President with this ruling.
Now what is not to report to every house-hold in America? The Conservative leg of SCOTUS are not NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
Cody continued, " Now what is not to report to every house-hold in America, unless, there is a little different thing going on? I suggest, if a decision has been made re-writing the Constitution, and that is not being celebrated by the Media, more then likely, ,my case was not represented to the Justices by the case analyst as very different in standing and circumstances then Weldon v. Obama."
"I really think this shows all of us, they through all of the Georgia cases in the same pot, which would be about as educated decision as throwing everyone in prison for a death sentence. It doesn't even make sense."
"In fact the following comment I received on my blog makes much more sense if indeed my case was not thrown in the same pot, and under these circumstances, the conservative branch of the whole United States Supreme Court really has grounds for being removed from the bench, and a Congressional Hearing and investigation needs to be undertaken immediately."
Anonymous Comment made:
[ It wasn't so much the clerks laughing but justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.
All three of them have one or more foreign parents, and all three naturally tend to believe that their allegiance to the USA is not affected by whether the parents were naturalized before or after the justices were born. They are likely to have had friends who had foreign-born parents who were naturalized after their children were born---and they did not notice any difference in the behavior of these friends from people whose parents were naturalized before the children were born.
The laugh is that Judy was asking Scalia, Alito and the chief justice to vote that they believed the writers of the US Constitution may have believed that the US-born children of foreigners (who the justices ARE) are not as good as the US-born children of US citizens. Well, they do not believe it, and the certainly would not vote that the writers of the US Constitution believed it unless there were actual evidence that they did---and there isn't any.
That's quite a laugh. ]
Cody Robert Judy's Response:
[That is a good laugh for them I suppose.., and a good reason they should lose their nice cushy jobs because they failed the Constitution. There's a legislative mandate that says so, as we all know how many times the 'attempt' was made to change it in the Legislative Branch and the attempts failed. Its NOT their job to re-write it, and the construction prohibitions of the Constitutions say so. I do think your comment was very insightful, and I appreciate it.]
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign - Cody Robert Judy - www.codyjudy.us - www.codyjudy.blogspot.com - YouTube: CODE4PRES
Comments