Quote Originally Posted by Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship
52 minutes ago
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.
Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.
Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Cons ution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.
Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
Some highlights of the order -

Quote Originally Posted by Court's Order
General:

We note that while we take Plaintiff's allegations as true for purposes of this motion (as we must), Defendants Obama and DNC characterize them as "patently false." See Opinion at 7, footnote 7.

"...Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory." See Opinion at 11, footnote 9 (emphasis supplied).

"Plaintiff attempts to establish standing on several additional grounds, but his arguments do not solve the fundamental problem that the harm he alleges does not cons ute an injury in fact. His most reasonable arguments attempt to distinguish Hollander. For example, he asserts that the harm he has experienced is sufficient to cons ute an injury in fact under Akins. However, Plaintiff ventures into the unreasonable with arguments based on a number of federal statutes." See Opinion at 14 (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied).

"Plaintiff makes additional claims about Obama and his campaign "abus[ing] their position and the law for intimidation purposes to stop people from free speech when the speech includes criticism or questioning ofObama ...."... The Amended Complaint makes no attempt to allege facts in support of these claims, which standing on their own are nothing more than conclusory allegations." See Opinion at 21, footnote 15 (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied).


What other straws are left to grasp at?