Then this court case sets a recent precedence for Marco Rubio to be eligible.
I like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal

Are you under the impression that the rules are going to be applied consistently? ;-)

Yep I sure do. They have no choice now but to follow legal precedence. LOL

Legal precedence is what 800 years of English common law is based upon. That went down the toilet along with the Magna Carta when Bush, Obama and congress nullified habeas corpus and legalized state kidnapping, torture and murder. Currently there is no law except at the whim of the state. Keep voting the same lawbreakers into office though, and hope for your change.

The case seemed to be going good until the judge prolly got a phone call. Prolly the call included graffic details of how his children could be tortured.

It's like one poster said "the dog keeps barking but the caravan moves on"

Nobody wants to be the first person to make the Preident honor his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Cuz that person will then be a racist.

President.

I am actually very surprised at the reasoning given by the judge. It is almost unheard of for a state judge to rely upon a decision from another state to make their ruling. You *sometimes* hear a judge include the reasoning used in another state's ruling, but it is never the basis for a decision -- only a supporting fact among many.

So I'm guessing it is a progressive/liberal judge. It is like when one of the Supreme Court's liberal judges uses the reasoning in another country's ruling to help guide their decision-making. That should *never* happen -- not even once in a million years. And a state judge should *never* use another state's ruling as the basis of their own decision.

@Todd: good points about using precedence outside of jurisdiction of the case. Like you said, it's unheard of except for reference.

It's a stupid case. A waste of time and money.