Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Breaking — Supreme Court does not prevent Obama from becoming president!

By

That’s right, folks — as the BMG oracle foretold last week, Leo Donofrio’s effort to derail the inauguration of Barack Obama as president was dealt a harsh blow by the Supreme Court when the Justices denied his application for stay without comment or recorded dissent.  Here, in its entirety, is the entry from yesterday’s order sheet (pdf):

08A407  DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE

The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

Unfortunately, the confusion over this case and its procedural posture persists — even the NY Times, in reporting the Court’s action, got it wrong:

Without comment, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal by a New Jersey man who questioned President-elect Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency, based on his birth to a father from Kenya and a mother who was a United States citizen.

No, no, no.  “Declined to take up an appeal” means that the case was before Justices, and they refused to hear it.  That’s not what happened, because, as you can see from this case’s docket sheet, no petition for certiorari has yet been filed, which means that the Justices have yet to decide whether to “take up” this case.  The denial of the stay application simply means that they have refused to issue an interim order pending their final disposition of the case.  The distinction can be quite important (though it likely won’t be in this case) — among other things, it takes five votes to grant a stay, but only four to grant certiorari.

As I’ve said before, once a petition for certiorari is filed, it will be denied.  But that hasn’t happened yet, so technically this case is not yet dead and gone.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. What David is saying, of course, is that this case may still be decided in the plaintiff’s favor. There has been no final disposition.

    <

    p>Put those hotel reservations on hold!

    <

    p>Have at it, FreeRepublic.

    <

    p>< /snark >

    <

    p>This is the most ridiculous idiotic issue. Now, if the SC would also issue some dicta as to whether a person born by C-section is or is not eligible under the “natural born” clause, we’d be making some constitutional progress!

    <

    p>I can’t believe we are even discussing this.

    • is that this ridiculous case has garnered far, far more attention than it deserves, due almost entirely to total ignorance of Supreme Court procedure on the part of political reporters employed by some major news outlets.  These folks, who apparently have nothing better to do, made all kinds of wild assumptions about what the Court was doing with the case.  Case in point: the fellow from the Chicago Tribune who blithely observed: “I can only assume the justice [Thomas] saw some potentially interesting legal issue in the lawsuit.”  Wrong-o, Mr. Reporter, and if you had a clue about how the Court works, you’d know that.

      <

      p>I explained here why their assumptions were completely wrong.  Just thought I’d follow up on that.

  2. As far as I can tell there are two ways to become a citizen: to be natural-born or naturalized.  One does have to be a citizen to be a US Senator and since Obama was never naturalized the assumption must have been that he was natural-born.  Besides, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is clear on this:

    <

    p>”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    <

    p>Obama was born in Hawaii and not a member of a native tribe so the “subject to the jurisdiction” qualifier does not apply.  This is just like questions regarding McCain’s birth in the Canal Zone.  He also served in the Senate without having been naturalized, so the assumption for him must also have been that he was natural-born.

    • Just google around for Obama and citizenship, or “natural born citizen,” or something like that.  What you find will astound you.

    • But this stuff comes unadulterated from Crazyland.

      <

      p>The theories that I have heard are that he was never born in Hawaii, but maybe Kenya or Indonesia, or that, when his family moved to Indonesia, they renounced their citizenship because this was required by the Indonesian government.

      <

      p>Or something.

    • Well, technically, there’s a third alternative. If he wasn’t ever naturalized, and he wasn’t a natural-born citizen, and he doesn’t have a visa or green card, he must be an illegal alien.

      <

      p>I say we deport him! But not until 2017, please.

  3. May I say, I find this issue fascininating in a twisted way? I find myself wanting to be the one to persuade the misguided wingnut that they are talking hooey. Maybe if I just explain it one more time, they’ll see reason! I’ve been beating my head against the wall over at RMG lately trying to do just that.

    <

    p>I think ultimately it is a waste of time to engage in these discussions, since the people on the other side aren’t really open to persuasion. All you get back are citations to rambling and foolish articles, long disquisitions about the “Chester Arthur cover-up,” the supposed legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, etc. That doesn’t mean I’m going to be able to stop myself!

    <

    p>One thing I find interesting is to compare wingnut theories. On the one hand, you have Philip J. Berg, who wants to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii, that the birth certificate is a fraud, and so forth. On the other hand, you have professional poker player Leo Denofrio (click “download” on the liked page), who emphatically denies making any such ridiculous claim and then goes on to claim, ridiculously, that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though he was born in Hawaii!

    <

    p>TedF

  4. … of a press conference by some truthers.  Mike Madden at Salon has a pretty funny write-up:

    … But considering the Supreme Court had refused Monday morning to hear a lawsuit about Obama’s citizenship, there was reason to hope that maybe things at the afternoon press conference would stay reasonable.

    Two and a half hours later, as dentist-slash-lawyer Orly Taitz harangued reporters for not investigating whether Obama’s mother was actually dead, that hope had been obliterated. It was crushed by a torrent of half-baked legal theories, vague platitudes about the Constitution and sinister “facts” assembled by a collection of true believers so extreme that even Michelle Malkin wants nothing to do with them. (Let alone actual Republican operatives, who appear to realize that questioning Obama’s citizenship isn’t the best way to begin their journey out of the political wilderness.) Although the news conference wasn’t quite over when Taitz began her harangue, it had been 15 minutes since a member of the audience compared Obama’s alleged electoral fraud to how Hitler rose to power — a sure sign it was well past time to leave.

    <

    p>Check out the link.  It’s surreal.  A Circus of the first class.  And I love the way he wraps it up at the end:

    … For the foreseeable future, there could be “a new lawsuit for every action Obama takes” as president, Berg said. And to think Clinton had it bad.

    <

    p>Also, I learned an interesting fact.  Don’t assume any ‘media legitimacy’ on the part of anybody briefing a story from the National Press Club:

    … the dirty little secret is the club rents out its rooms to anybody who shows up with the money.

    • The National Press Club ruse was amply demonstrated by the infinitely awesome Larry Sinclair press conference, held this summer at the NPC.  

      <

      p>Some choice tidbits:

      <

      p>

      The event began less than auspiciously for Mr. Sinclair — who has gained Internet notoriety by spreading wild accusations regarding gay sex, drugs and possible murder committed by Barack Obama — as National Press Club staff took pains to remove the association’s logo from behind the podium where Sinclair was set to speak. (Politico’s Ben Smith today detailed Sinclair’s “27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit.”)

      <

      p>

      And pay Sinclair did — for the venue and its microphone, as well as for a kilted lawyer (with a suspended license) named Montgomery Blair Sibley, who informed those assembled that his preferences in dress were arrived at as a way to secure comfort for his unusually large sexual organs. “I don’t know why men wear pants,” he said with a poker face. “It’s a function of male genitalia. If you’re size normal or smaller, you’re probably comfortable with [pants]. … Those at the other end of the spectrum find them quite confining.”

  5. Yes, the wingnuts are trying to gain admission. For $10.95, you too can fedex the electors your plea:

    Only you, our Electors, have the power and responsibility – and the obligation under the Constitution – to use your authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.

    <

    p>I suppose that the FedEx charges for retaining habeas corpus run a little higher.

Archives