For the second time in as many months, a Federal Judge has come down hard on Oily Taintz and the Birfer movement. For the first time, though, a Federal Judge has gotten to the gist of the constitutional argument. A court removing a sitting President would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

From the decision:

Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

The Judge went on to describe the tactics of the Taintzy Birfers:

[T]he Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

SWORN AFFIDAVITS claiming suborning perjury. It is obvious that Oily could face CRIMINAL charges once the appropriate U. S. Attorney investigates these affidavits and calls upon the claimants to appear before a Federal Grand Jury.

Full 30 page decision here

Judge Carter also had in his decision the tactics of the Birfer laity he found offensive. Oily had organized and encouraged her toothless followers to deluge the Judge with phone calls. Federal Judges don’t like such tactics.

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor to Be Sworn in as Supreme Court Justice
2. ACLU versus DOJ
3. ACLU reacts to photo release reversal
4. American Constitution Society
5. One More Reason Obama’s Victory Was so Important