Why is it that Justices Ginsburg and Souter have tossed junk lawsuits about Barack Obama’s citizenship, but Justices Thomas and now Scalia have wanted them read in conference? There have been two coherent lawsuits alleging that both Obama and McCain are ineligible for the presidency. Here’s what happened to the first:
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
Nov 26 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
Dec 1 2008 Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A407) denied by the Court.
And the second:
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
That means that the Obama Birthers, some of whom had a press conference today (which I attended), get to spend at least four, and probably seven, more days casting doubt on the Obama election.
What is the lesson that Scalia and Thomas are sending? Either they’ve reversed their views on standing, or they’re letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider. And at some point that’s doing damage to the country. Do they really want people thinking the president is illegitimate because they didn’t do like the liberal justices and reject this baseless kookery? I can’t remember, but was either Scalia or Thomas in the habit of having the court read the “Bush knocked down the twin towers!” junk lawsuits?
Whatever the case, World Net Daily thanks them—the site has a new scam in which Obama Birthers can pay them to harass members of the Electoral College.
This thing has 4 Comments
That means that the Obama Birthers, some of whom had a press conference today (which I attended), get to spend at least four, and probably seven, more days casting doubt on the Obama election.
Well, they only casting doubt in the way that 9/11 Troofers do. Which is to say, not at all, at least not of any serious consequence. You and I know darn well what the outcome of these cases are. I say let them have their play. I’ll be honest, I’d actually kind of like to see one of these get to the stage where Obama is compelled to produce a certified original copy of his birth certificate, just to shut these guys up the hardest.
The Donofrio and Wortnowski cases you referenced are not about birth certificates!
Obama’s father was Kenyan and thus Obama is a Kenyan (British) citizen through his father. If he was born in Honolulu, he has dual citizenship potential.
These 2 cases are about the ‘natural-born citizen’ clause of the constitution, that from past cases in 1800s, means BOTH parents were AMERICAN CITIZENS at the time of birth of the child.
If this is still the correct interpretation of ‘natural-born citizen’, then Obama is ineligible to POTUS.
Why is that so difficult to follow?
Birth certificate? We don’t need no stinking birth certificate. The Constitution be damned. George Soros for President, 2012!!
Dan Rather seems to be getting his day in court to continue insisting the Bush Guard memos are real and he only lost his job because of a media conspiracy to help Republicans (rofl). He’s even got a new job.
At any rate, Weigel’s erliably partisan description of this as “kookery” aside, there seems to be a legtimate legal point about the definition of “natural-born citizen.” While they are almost certainly not going to overturn a national election, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have the SCOTUS rule on that point of law.