Will Supreme Court take case on Obama's citizenship?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
People need to calm down on both sides here. Darius is correct that the standing issue is something the SCOTUS may want to clear up. It makes no sense that a voter can't have standing to challenge the eligibility of a government official for office. Who else would have standing? His opponent?

Don't bother. Apparently that's too mundane when they can comfortably argue facts that no reasonable person even contests. Kneejerk reactions like that entirely miss the point of this appeal, but I guess that's to be expected.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Darius871
Do you have any idea what you're talking about, ever? The first line of the judgment copy I posted in this very thread as well as the Petition for Writ of Certiorari I linked in this very thread list the heading Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. His second cause of action was even promissory estoppel against Obama personally for his promises' inducement of Berg's having donated money and billable hours to Democratic campaigns in reliance on his eligibility.

The other defendants were the DNC, FEC, and "Does" to be identified by discovery, not any SoS that I can see.

The case being taken up by SCOTUS, which is what we're really talking about, is NOT against Obama. It's called Donofrio vs. Wells. Who is Wells? She's the NJ SoS:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-birth-cer.html

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.

The suit you posted (and dude, nobody is going to read 4 posts worth of legal blah blah if you're too lazy to summarize ) isn't an issue anymore, now is it? Did you think that's the suit Thomas referred to the court? Because that suit was already declined.

So since the issue was about a complaint from BK about Obama supposedly wasting money in these suits, it's not relevant. Do YOU think Obama's to blame for the wasted time/resources of these suits?

Uhh... McCain was sued over his eligibility, in a case so directly analogous to this one to have been repeatedly cited as a pivotal precedent in it, though McCain's case of course didn't get the same media attention, probably because it didn't afford as much opportunity to for certain people to predictably sensationalize about "sheer racist lunacy" as Obama's does. Look up Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) for an education, or simply read in this very thread how it was cited in - and largely determinative of - Berg's case.

Was McCain ordered by the court to produce his birth certificate, YES/NO?

In fact, in perusing the ruling for that case, it wasn't MCCAIN who produced the copy of the certificate, it was HOLLANDER. If you'd bother to understand what was being argued, and as you actually bolded, the issue was, has a president-elect ever been required to produce an original birth certificate to prove his natural-born citizen status? And the answer is a clear "No."

PS: Hollander's case was dismissed because the court ruled he had lack of standing to sue.

[GePap]

Any voter woudln't have standing anymore than any citizen has standing when it comes to suing the government for say, the existance of the prison in Guantanamo.

How is Berg harmed if Obama were not to be a Naturaly born citizen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

his possible "harm" seems akin to the following:

Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches
Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest

The only harm he can claim is an undifferentiated harm (in no way tangible) that the Constitution was violated, and thus his beliefe in the Constitution is diminished, or something.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Darius871
Don't bother. Apparently that's too mundane when they can comfortably argue facts that no reasonable person even contests. Kneejerk reactions like that entirely miss the point of this appeal, but I guess that's to be expected.

There are at least two very unreasonable people in this thread, and I don't see what's wrong with pointing out how they're full of ****.

The standing issue is of little interest to me, yes. I've not argued about it at all so far.

[Ramo]

and you can forget about Keyes, since everybody else has forgotten it, out of those who ever even caught that minor aspect of a minor Senate race half a decade ago, who were few to begin with

Keyes had reasonably prominent posts at the State Dept. He had an actual major party nomination for a Senate seat (actually two of them - in two different states, even!), rather than 1.3% of one. He was the last Republican to run a race against the President-Elect. He came in third in the race for the Republican nomination for President in 2000, getting nearly 1/6 of McCain's popular vote (and beating fourth place, Forbes, by a similar factor). He probably has a radio show or some other kind of public forum that hordes of crazy people tune into. There really is no comparison between Berg and Keyes in terms of public stature.

[Boris Godunov]

Hollander's claim of harm was that he'd be disenfranchised if he voted for McCain (Hollander was a Republican, btw) and McCain was subsequently removed from office for being ineligible. The court didn't think much of that idea.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The case being taken up by SCOTUS, which is what we're really talking about, is NOT against Obama. It's called Donofrio vs. Wells. Who is Wells? She's the NJ SoS:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...birth-cer.html

That's not the only one being taken up by the SCOTUS. The OP referred to Berg's as "the most famous case" so it seemed to be the one in mind. Berg's appeal was not declined by the SCOTUS yet; only his previous request that the election be stayed was declined (unsurprisingly). Obama's response postmark deadline for Berg's actual Petition for Writ of Certiorari didn't expire until 12/1/08, and based on their allowance for mail, it hasn't been considered yet to set for conference, which they probably won't. But fine, the particular one Thomas passed through is against the NJ SoS, not that it matters.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So since the issue was about a complaint from BK about Obama supposedly wasting money in these suits, it's not relevant. Do YOU think Obama's to blame for the wasted time/resources of these suits?

Actually I do to an extent, since it would only take him one goddamned phone call and fax to lay all of this to rest instantly, instead of wasting tens of thousands of DNC dollars paying lawyers for months to get all this crap dismissed. That money could have been better spent on past and future House and Senate races, among other things. So yes, I am pissed off at him for unnecessarily wasted time/resources, though obviously for different reasons than BK.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Was McCain ordered by the court to produce his birth certificate, YES/NO?

Did I say he was ordered by any court to do so? YES/NO? Seeing as I said it was "determinative of Berg's case," obviously NO. The only point was that he was subjected to similar controversy, to the point of being dragged into court over it, and made the totally harmless decision to just release the certificate and move on, because there's absolutely nothing to lose in doing so.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
PS: Hollander's case was dismissed because the court ruled he had lack of standing to sue.

Did I suggest otherwise? YES/NO? Seeing as I said it was "determinative of Berg's case," obviously NO.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo

and you can forget about Keyes, since everybody else has forgotten it, out of those who ever even caught that minor aspect of a minor Senate race half a decade ago, who were few to begin with

Keyes had reasonably prominent posts at the State Dept. He had an actual major party nomination for a Senate seat (actually two of them - in two different states, even!), rather than 1.3% of one. He was the last Republican to run a race against the President-Elect. He came in third in the race for the Republican nomination for President in 2000, getting nearly 1/6 of McCain's popular vote (and beating fourth place, Forbes, by a similar factor). He probably has a radio show or some other kind of public forum that hordes of crazy people tune into. There really is no comparison between Berg and Keyes in terms of public stature.

I didn't say Keyes was a nobody, did I? I suggested that almost no one outside Illinois gave a **** about some long-shot Senate candidate's frivolous allegations against Obama-whoever in 2004, and certainly nobody gives a **** about it now. It was a non-story outside Illinois, and still is, except among a few obsessive polytubbies perhaps. Normal people didn't know a thing about Obama's eligibility problems until he ran for president; in fact it wasn't even a big story until some cases neared the SCOTUS after he won. That's what people will remember, not ancient history.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Darius871
Actually I do to an extent, since it would only take him one goddamned phone call and fax to lay all of this to rest instantly, instead of wasting tens of thousands of DNC dollars paying lawyers for months to get all this crap dismissed. That money could have been better spent on past and future House and Senate races, among other things. So yes, I am pissed off at him for unnecessarily wasted time/resources, though obviously for different reasons than BK.

Anyone can file a lawsuit, and they can also appeal ad nauseum if their suit is dimissed, no matter how frivolous it is. Obama, the DNC, the state SOSes, or whoever is being sued is going to be forced to spend money on his legal responses regardless. Do you honestly think his producing the orginal birth certificate would stop that? His producing a certified copy hasn't, after all. Would it make any real change to the cost to the nation of these suits?

Since you know full well how frivolous these suits are, the only people you should be angry at are the *******s filing them, not Obama, not the DNC, not the states. That'd you'd blame the victims for this is simply unreasonable.

Did I say he was ordered by any court to do so? YES/NO?

Then your bringing it up missed the point. This is why you need to read and take time to understand the arguments going on instead of flinging yourself stupidly into the middle of them.

Synopsis:

BK: Since I have to produce a Birth Certificate at the DMV (note the stupidity, since he doesn't have to present an original, a certfied copy will do), Obama should have to produce his to be president.
Me: When has a President ever been required to produce a birth certificate?
BK: McCain (who interestingly enough isn't President...)
Me: No, McCain was never required to produce a birth certificate (and as you stated, he wasn't).

What's to argue with that sequence? Why are you even getting involved, since you didn't bother to understand what was going on?

Did I suggest otherwise? YES/NO? Seeing as I said it was "determinative of Berg's case," obviously NO.

Did I say you were suggesting otherwise, YES/NO?

Dude, you really need to dial it down and stop being argumentative for argument's sake. If you want to jump into the middle of battles, at least understand what's going on first, K?

[KrazyHorse]

I suggested that almost no one outside Illinois gave a **** about some long-shot Senate candidate's frivolous allegations against Obama-whoever in 2004

On the contrary, I remember that Senate race quite well and I've never even been in Illinois (except to drive through it)

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
Any voter woudln't have standing anymore than any citizen has standing when it comes to suing the government for say, the existance of the prison in Guantanamo.

How is Berg harmed if Obama were not to be a Naturaly born citizen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

his possible "harm" seems akin to the following:

Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches
Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest

The only harm he can claim is an undifferentiated harm (in no way tangible) that the Constitution was violated, and thus his beliefe in the Constitution is diminished, or something.

A) His primary theory was not merely violation of the Constitution in itself, but rather that his party's candidate being (allegedly) ineligible would effectively deprive him of the franchise, which would certainly an individualized harm. Or do you think African-Americans challenging poll taxes or grandfather clauses dealt with excessively "generalized grievances"? Sure it's different in that they had no vote as opposed to at least having a choice between an opponent and a nullity, but at the very least the franchise would be infringed if not negated in practice.

B) As mentioned on this thread, his "backup" theory was one of promissory estoppel, alleging in short that open representations by Obama and the DNC that the Presidential candidate was eligible, and Berg's reasonable reliance on those representations, induced his tangible donation of both cash and billable hours to DNC efforts.

C) Theoretically the same facts in B could even raise a fraud cause of action, though Berg chose not to do so AFAICS. Obviously it would be almost impossible to prove the intent element of fraud, but you should know that factual merits are not a factor in standing analysis.

D) This isn't relevant to Berg's case given that he (stupidly) didn't include any State officials as defendants, but 42 USC S.1983 explicitly grants standing and jurisdiction to sue any State official for violation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, which would obviously include the franchise. Of course it would be difficult to prove any State official's complicity, but again factual merits are not a factor in standing analysis, and in any case it could be fairly alleged that their placing X on the ballot should require a process to directly confirm X's eligibility.

Happy now?

[KrazyHorse]

It got quite a bit of coverage because of the Jeri Ryan thing

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I suggested that almost no one outside Illinois gave a **** about some long-shot Senate candidate's frivolous allegations against Obama-whoever in 2004

On the contrary, I remember that Senate race quite well and I've never even been in Illinois (except to drive through it)

Hence the:

Originally posted by Darius871
except among a few obsessive polytubbies perhaps.

[Boris Godunov]

The Obama/Keyes race was definitely the most high-profile senate race of 2004. Obama's speech at the DNC made him a national star, after all.

[KrazyHorse]

What, you weren't interested in the fact that a US Senator was watching his smoking-hot actress wife **** other men on stage in sex clubs?