So "accepting for the point of this issue" is different from "assuming for the sake of argument"?

accepting = assuming
point = sake
issue = argument

There's no curing stupidity, especially the deliberate kind.

Maybe you ought to challenge the Puzz to a game of Scrabble

After Judge Masin put up with all of Apuzzo's about Vattel and his misinterpretation of Minor, he had to bring out the and let fire it at Apuzzo and the Vattelists.

That would be like any of the lawyers on The Fogbow challenging him to a debate on the law. But I could spot him 300 points to make it competitive.

Oy veh! Since I'm back on the left coast doing 24/7 sister-duty again, today was the first I've been able to find a time block long enough to watch the videos of the Great Jersey Central Toy Train Wreck.

I was never a huge fan of The Three Stooges -- or slapstick comedy in general -- but I've come to enjoy watching the pratfalls of birther lawyers. It's so universally bad that you have to suspend disbelief. It isn't just Orly who never disappoints; it's the entire Birther Bar.

It's hard to pick out highlights from Mario's performance as he stumbles and bumbles from one fail to another.

So seriously, someone tell me this isn't real. It's an extended skit or a scripted farce, right?

Piff -- We're not really sure it's Apuzzo. Epectitus said he didn't recognize the buffoon who disgraced himself in Joisey last week.

I guess during a midlife crisis a lawyer should not switch from DUI to Election and Constitutional Law

True dat. Or patent law. Or dogbite law. Or, for that matter, toof pullin' & polishin'.

Don't forget buffoons crapticing bankruptcy law with the Big Dogs.

I don't find it suprising at all that a birther would post such a bald faced lie and attempt to convince other birthers this fib is really true.

Birthers haven't enjoyed any successes in the courts. I don't recall birther attorneys (except for possibly Orly Taitz) filing an eligibility challenge suit for quite some time. Those folks have abandoned their attempts to remove Pres Obama from office and are now concentrating on ballot challenges prior to the 2012 elections in order to prevent his re-election. The birther dreams of Pres Obama and VP Biden being removed from office and John Boehner being sworn in as President (in addition to Justices Sotomayor and Kagan looking for new employment) vanished some time ago.

Back on April 2011 I wrote about anticipated birther stress and stupidity levels in the upcoming months. I'm still sticking with it.


viewtopic.php?p=230844#p230844

Sorry for responding to a 3 day old post. I'm trying to get caught up.

Apuzzo dreams the dream:

Now where have I heard the "only a 14th amendment citizen" claims before??

Oh, right. Stormfront and other white nationalists sewers.

Uh, right Mario. There is no basis for your argument because, well, there is no basis for your argument.

This is another one of those annoying canonical absurdities that the Birfer Bar accepts as a matter of faith. And as such, it is impervious to any amount of argument, proof or appeal to competent authority.

While it is arguably true that the Federal trial courts (courts of limited jurisdiction) were never chartered as courts of general jurisdiction designed to decide common law causes of action, it is patently ludicrous to maintain "that the English common law was [adopted] not at all on the Federal level."

I'd like to hear Mario's fanciful vision of the fledgling Federal courts of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. What does he think they did when issues arose where the statutes were ambiguous or silent or words needed interpreting? Did they just make shit up?

Of course not. Consistent with the English tradition (which is unquestionably now the American tradition), they defered to the body of law that recorded how prior jurists had decided similar issues. That body of law was unquestionably the English common law and the guiding jurisprudential principle -- then and now -- is stare decisis.

Has he never read more than a handful of Federal cases? Adherence to common law holdings abound and they are very often noted as such. They pervade the process by which words are parsed, phrases are given expanded meanings and problems are broken down into elements or parts.

But yet Mario would parse words, give new meanings to phrases and invent new elements -- all the while denying that common law has any place "on the federal level". It is a most convenient premise to make shit up. And that's about it.

OK, I know I'm babbling on with no prospect whatsoever of persuading Mario or any other birther lawyer that the truth is so obviously and palpably under his nose as to be just plain silly. It's like arguing with a child. Or an idiot. Or both.

He certainly hasn't read early federal cases, which before a well-developed body of American common law, almost exclusively cited English cases. Why does that mental midget think most law school textbooks on the major first year subjects start with English cases to demonstrate basic principles? Did he read them? Does he read anything other than his own orotund blatherings?

No.

Hey Mario - on the common law in federal practice - take a read of the SCOTUS case handed down today, Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, No, 11-88, (April 18, 2012), Slip op. at 6, citing an earlier SCOTUS case: “Congress is understood to legislate against a background of common-law adjudicatory principles.” Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108 (1991)." Hmm.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-88.pdf

Don't you have anything more recent, Bluebook? That case is at least an hour old.

Just catchin' up.

Oh, Apuzzo:

So Apuzzo is consigned to debating the meaning of the leading Supreme Court precedent with a layperson who wrote a book about the phony experts opining about digital renderings of President Obama's birth certificates? And the layperson whupped Apuzzo's ass?

Why am I not surprised?

And the answer and proof of course lies in the dissent to WKA where it is stated that WKA means furriners born on the soil get to run for Prez

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not