Court denies Massachusetts GOP effort to halt Kirk's Senate appointment

By GottaLaff

It was pretty much a given:

A Massachusetts court has rejected a request from the state Republican Party to put a temporary hold on Sen.-designate Paul Kirk’s (D-Mass.) swearing-in Friday, clearing the way for Democrats to have a 60th seat in the Senate. [...]

The court ruled early Friday afternoon that the appointment would proceed.

"The [Republican] Party has not shown that it has a chance to succeed on the merits and, therefore, any risk of harm to the party will not outweigh the risk of harm to the governor and the commonwealth,” Judge Thomas Connolly said, according to WCVB-TV in Boston.

Original post about the lawsuit here.

GOP files suit to block temporary Kennedy replacement Kirk

By GottaLaff

Obstructionism! It's not just for blocking White House nominees any more!

After failing in their bid to stop the Massachusetts legislature from giving Democratic Governor Deval Patrick the power to fill a United States Senate vacancy, Republicans are going to court on Friday to try to prevent the governor’s interim pick from taking office.

On the same day that Patrick chose Paul Kirk, a long-time friend and associate of Ted Kennedy to temporarily replace the late senator, Republicans filed court papers arguing that Patrick’s use of an emergency declaration paving the way for the nomination was unconstitutional. Because most Massachusetts laws do not go into effect for 90 days, Patrick had to issue the declaration so that the just-passed legislation allowing him to name a replacement senator could take effect immediately.

A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction against Patrick is scheduled for 8 a.m. on Friday in Suffolk County Superior Court — several hours before Kirk is scheduled to be sworn in to office.

Several legal experts familiar with Massachusetts constitutional law said Republicans could face an uphill battle in seeking to delay or invalidate the governor’s appointment. [...]

Lawrence M. Friedman, a professor at New England Law in Boston who studies Massachusetts constitutional issues, predicted that the GOP challenge was unlikely to succeed.

“The court will treat it seriously and I expect given the gravity of the issue, it might even work its way to the Supreme Judicial Court,” Friedman said in an interview. “But in my opinion it’s unlikely that the judiciary is going to second guess the governor’s reasons for an emergency.”

Friedman added: “In a way it’s a political question and if the governor made a bad call, the voters will take it out on him in the next election.”

After reviewing the injunction, Marc Perlin, an associate dean and professor at Suffolk University Law School, agreed that there was little chance Republicans would be able to stop the appointment.

There go those contradictory Rushpublics again, filing more of the very lawsuits they claim to despise so much.

Hyp. O. Crites.

Conservatives Say They Will Sue to Stop HealthCare Reform

By GottaLaff

See, this is what I admire about the Rushpublics. They are such optimists, always looking at the bright side, trying to make things work, sharing, giving, reaching out:

While they still believe Congress will not succeed in passing a healthcare reform package shaped the way the president and Democrats want, opponents of government-run healthcare are laying the groundwork for lawsuits to stall and eventually kill any Democratic legislative victory—just in case. A broad group of conservatives has begun to explore how to file such lawsuits, who would file them, and what components of the legislation would be challenged, if not all of it. [...]

Most of the conservatives involved say that the mandate amounts to a tax and that it will be fought on constitutional grounds. [...] Sources say the suits will also be filed in most states and in as many courts as possible to avoid putting all eggs "in just a few baskets."

"America first"? OUT. Frivolous "just in case" lawsuits that Rushpublics have always maintained that they condemn? IN.

Good thing "tort reform" hasn't been voted on yet. They need trial lawyers on their side for just a little while longer.

Judge tosses out Army captain's complaint questioning president's birth; Orly Taitz on notice

TPM got an interview with Squirrely Orly just now where she compared herself to Nelson Mandela.

U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tossed out on Wednesday a complaint by an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq by questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama.

Land also put attorney Orly Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes and is a leader in the national “birther” movement, on notice by stating that she could face sanctions if she ever again files in his court a similar “frivolous” lawsuit — a document that at one point the judge states that a middle school student could find irony in.

“(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States,” Land states in his order. “Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”

(snip)

“Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status,” Land states. “Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.

“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so,” Land says.

Rep. Franks may file lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate

By GottaLaff

Teh TeaBirther Cuh-ray-zees are swarming again:

[I]n a “jammed-packed’ town hall meeting in an Arizona church, [Trent Franks (R-AZ)] said that he may file a lawsuit against Obama on the birther issue:

The other main issue dealt with numerous speakers questioning Obama’s birth certificate and why there wasn’t an investigation into whether he is a naturalized citizen. One woman said a newspaper announcement of his birth in Hawaii was not sufficient. Another asked how he could have a passport without a birth certificate.

Franks said there was not enough evidence that Obama is not an American citizen. He did say there was a lot of conflicting evidence of Obama’s citizenship and that he was considering filing a lawsuit, the only congressman to do so. Franks asked why the president did not simply produce a birth certificate.

Franks also defended President Bush, saying “Americans will wish Bush was back as president.” (HT: Dave Weigel)

This man got elected? By voters? Who didn't commit voter fraud? Really?

Oh, and here's a little something I put together a couple of years ago that may knock some sense into those with a Bush Wish:

Retired general, lt. colonel join reservist's Obama birth certificate lawsuit

By GottaLaff

Original story here.

Good lord. President Obama is a U.S. citizen. Okay? Okay:

A controversial suit brought by a U.S. Army reservist has been joined by a retired Army two-star general and an active reserve Air Force lieutenant colonel.

Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 in federal court here asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his belief that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. [...]

In a pleading revised after the revocation of Cook’s orders, Taitz argues that the application for preliminary injunction is not moot and that retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”

Sarah Palin's Attorney Threatening Lawsuits

Oh good lord on a stick, even this woman's lawyer sounds like a moron. Go read the whole thing, but here's the fun bit-

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those "responsible for the abuse of that right." Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/... These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.