Originally posted by jam321
Danx, got a question for ya.
Is no merit the same as having no standing?
No. Merit is when your claim has a valid basis, supported by facts and the right laws. While standing is whether the plaintiff has any interest or
personal stake in the outcome. It means that just because you are citing all the right laws and have all the facts, doesn’t mean you are allowed to
sue.
For example, in this case in particular, if John McCain had filed a lawsuit against Obama, and assuming he had presented all the facts that would
support it, McCain would have both merit and more standing than anyone else, obviously.
This is why I’m telling people that just because the Courts are dismissing or refusing to hear the cases doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy. It
might be for various reasons. They might have found the cases to be meritiless or that the plaintiff doesn’t have standing, or both.
When it comes to Mr. Berg’s case, having looked at his arguments, I found them to be meritless. Regarding Mr. Donofrio’s case I thought it had
merit. but perhaps the SCOTUS ruled that Mr. Donofrio didn’t have standing to do so. We don’t know.
Anyway, as I’ve said before, I wish a good case comes along and the Supreme Court hears it, and not just because of this Obama situation in
particular, but because I believe it is important that the Supreme Court addresses the definition of “natural born” citizen once and for all.
I mean, if it doesn’t get addressed, it’s only a matter of time that this will happen again.