I think the Clintons are behind it...

[ChumpDumper]

Before I click on the link I'll take a stab at it...

Was it Famous Person?

That was awesome. You can't make this stuff up.

[Shastafarian]

That was awesome. You can't make this stuff up.

Hey. Don't be too rough on 'em. At least they got the date right.

[ChumpDumper]

And they did actually wait until after the debate this time.

[Shastafarian]

Yeah I mean, no campaign is truly and completely inept. I'm waiting for an ad where they blamed Obama for the passing of the Bailout Bill before it passed...oh wait that already happened. Maybe the next step is McCain accidentally shooting Brokaw in the face during the debate.

[sook]

poor yoni..if only he would have posted something not so blatantly stupid, or was a bull ter like whottt

[ploto]

Unless you have a different source, it's pretty clear that the Court hasn't issued any such order; instead, the plaintiff appended a proposed order setting those terms to his brief in opposition to Obama's motion to dismiss. A proposed order is just that -- a proposal. The court might sign it; it might not. The plaintiff also could have submitted a proposed order declaring any number of things that it hopes to obtain through the litigation -- such efforts aren't unusual (although they are obviously disfavored). But what's in a proposed order is largely irrelevant; until there's a signed order, the court has done nothing.

The fact that the Court asked the plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss is certainly suggestive, however, of a belief that the motion to dismiss is meritorious. Courts are frequently reluctant to take draconian steps like dismissal of claims without first affording the party who will lose an opportunity to explain its position. Not saying, by any means, that Obama will ultimately prevail, but I'd be pretty disappointed if I represented the plaintiff and had been asked to respond.

Owned.