Eddie3dfx
10-26-2008, 07:49 PM
This just in from www.americasright.com
The newest thing, I see, is that the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick somehow was forced to decide as he did in the Berg v. Obama suit, that the memorandum and order was somehow thrust upon him by a former law clerk who now works closely with Michelle Obama.
People, come on.
The standing doctrine is crystal clear. The law, in this case, was on the side of Barack Obama and the DNC when it came down to the procedural details. To prevail, Berg needed Judge Surrick to play the role of judicial activist and expand the law as it stands today.
Don't get me wrong -- I was hoping that Surrick would do just that. I find it sad, and somewhat contrary to what I feel our founders would have liked, that individuals cannot ask that a presidential candidate who has failed to be forthcoming in so many different ways to come clean about his questionable past. Still, as disappointing as Surrick's decision was, it was far from unexpected.
It would not take a conspiracy to force a judge to come down on the right side of the law as it currently stands. He did what was expected of him. I understand the will to look for answers, but if there is an answer that we should all be looing for, it should be to the question of standing and, more specifically, injury. Hopefully, as Berg proceeds through the court system, he will frame his questions in a way which will nudge the courts into providing a true, specific, definitive test for injury-in-fact, the first of three elements in the standing doctrine. Right now, while a judge may apply the plaintiff's allegations to a sliding scale of remoteness and speculation in order to decide whether a plaintiff has been injured in a specific and particularized manner, it would be nice to see a definitive test for the injury requirement come of all of this.
In the meantime, we are nine short days away from the most important election of this generation, a contest between two men with stark differences in policies, ideology and aspirations. We may not be able to affect the thinking of a political candidate or a district court judge -- so let's take responsibility for our own actions and do the right thing in the voting booth.
The newest thing, I see, is that the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick somehow was forced to decide as he did in the Berg v. Obama suit, that the memorandum and order was somehow thrust upon him by a former law clerk who now works closely with Michelle Obama.
People, come on.
The standing doctrine is crystal clear. The law, in this case, was on the side of Barack Obama and the DNC when it came down to the procedural details. To prevail, Berg needed Judge Surrick to play the role of judicial activist and expand the law as it stands today.
Don't get me wrong -- I was hoping that Surrick would do just that. I find it sad, and somewhat contrary to what I feel our founders would have liked, that individuals cannot ask that a presidential candidate who has failed to be forthcoming in so many different ways to come clean about his questionable past. Still, as disappointing as Surrick's decision was, it was far from unexpected.
It would not take a conspiracy to force a judge to come down on the right side of the law as it currently stands. He did what was expected of him. I understand the will to look for answers, but if there is an answer that we should all be looing for, it should be to the question of standing and, more specifically, injury. Hopefully, as Berg proceeds through the court system, he will frame his questions in a way which will nudge the courts into providing a true, specific, definitive test for injury-in-fact, the first of three elements in the standing doctrine. Right now, while a judge may apply the plaintiff's allegations to a sliding scale of remoteness and speculation in order to decide whether a plaintiff has been injured in a specific and particularized manner, it would be nice to see a definitive test for the injury requirement come of all of this.
In the meantime, we are nine short days away from the most important election of this generation, a contest between two men with stark differences in policies, ideology and aspirations. We may not be able to affect the thinking of a political candidate or a district court judge -- so let's take responsibility for our own actions and do the right thing in the voting booth.