By Ted Belman
I watched the oral arguments before the C of A on the matter of standing in the matter of eligibility of Obama.
Here’s my impression.
1) The Judges gave the matter a fair hearing keeping in mind that they have full written briefs before them. The oral arguments is an opportunity to press their questions.
2) The plaintiffs in the cases under appeal include ordinary citizens, military men and a Presidential candidate in the last election.
3) The judges were concered about timing. What is the situation before the elections, between election and inauguration and after inauguration. Different issues apply to each.
4) Could the Congress handle this matter through impeachment after election. Yes Congress could impeach but only the Courts could interpret the law.
5) What is the injury to the plaintiffs? Lakin lost his pension. The Candidate was denied a level playing field. I thought why doesn’t a citizen have standing to question before the courts the eligibility of a candidate for president.
6) the SSN issue is in the Court briefs. So I don’t think it can easily be dismissed
7) They also wanted to know what relief the plaintiff was asking for.
So the Court has to decide if any Plaintifs qualify to bring the suit. This depends on when it was brought and who if anyone has been injured. Taitz also raised the issue that the lower court was biased.