January 18, 2009
If I understand it correctly, Anderson is an outside agent who has an interest in the case and believes SCOTUS needs to look at aspects of the case that have not previously been examined. It doesn’t mean SCOTUS has any obligation to do anything further except read it. They’re just covering themselves. I have a post about the meaning of “standing” – the major hurdle in these cases – which I have to find amongst the over two thousand drafts we have.
Basically, to challenge the constitutionality of something the plaintiff has to prove that some harm will come about. That harm has to fulfill three criteria and then on top of that there are three more judicially imposed criteria. Strangely, from what I grasp, all US citizens have the true potential of harm if barry is ineligible, but a single citizen does not have standing because the harm is not limited to them.
That is the difference in the Hollister v Soetero case. The retired, but subject to recall at any time by the Commander in Chief, Col Hollister will be directly affected where Berg is not. Berg is acting as an interpleader. Col Hollister’s potential further actions in the USAF would directly hinge on the orders of the CIC. If barry is not eligible – is Col Hollister bound to obey or disobey direct orders? That is his standing.
Lightfoot v Brown has a different twist and involves citizens, military members and election officials. Another post.
Caveat: This is just my understanding of it. You asked – I provided. Anyone who knows please comment and I’ll append it to the post. I know it’s a totally useless cause, but we, like you, will not have been taken by obamahoax. The truth will be known one day no matter how the Secret Service and other government agencies have tried to hide it. That’s another post I need to find.
Has anyone noticed how chipper barry has been lately? Besides getting his fix of robamabot adoration, he and Biden met with SCOTUS on January 14th. I imagine that had they had reservations, they would have asked him outright for evidence. I imagine they didn’t, which explain would then explain his chipperness.
A snippet of Anderson’s brief:
The amicus is a citizen of the State of Arizona [Bill Anderson] and an elector of that state for elector for President of the United States. He voted in the general election held by the State of Arizona on November 4, 2008. This Court has in fact recognized that the amicus has an interest in this type of case.
Your amicus submits that it will not be possible for this Court to dispose of this case properly without considering the following points which either have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or which have not been adequately discussed:
1.) This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and,
2.) The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama, 2 and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, crises that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and,
3.) With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.