Will Supreme Court take case on Obama's citizenship?

[Boris Godunov]

Darius: You acknowledged yourself on page one that what the defense teams are doing in these cases is commonly accepted legal strategy. While you may argue the wisdom of it, the fact is that the actual defendants, whether it be Obama, the DNC, or the SoSes, are relying on their lawyers for the strategy, and are probably deferring to them. For whatever reason, these lawyers have decided this is the strategy to pursue, and their clients are having good faith that they're doing what's right. Are the lawyers possibly dragging this out to increase billable hours? Maaaaybe. I don't know their rationale. But I do know that it's silly to blame the actual defendants for this. They're the ones being sued frivolously, and blame lies squarely with the plaintiffs, as surely as it does for any frivolous lawsuits.

Why should you assume I was defending BK in any way, shape, or form?

Probably because you butted in on an argument between us and sounded very much like you were defending his arguments. I now see that you had no clue what was actually being discussed and were just bloviating to be argumentative. Mea Culpa.

Although to be as nit-picky as you, I never said you were defending BK.

Regardless of whatever nonsense he was pulling out of his ass, an underlying theme of the discussion at least was whether McCain was expected by many to present proof positive of his eligibility. Forced by a court with the threat of contempt charges? No. Expected, and pressured? Yes. Expected and pressured to the point of being involuntarily dragged into court over the issue? Yes

None of this was disputed. I stated at least twice that, as a matter of principle, I don't think McCain should have produced his birth certificate. I think the privateness of such documents exists for a very good reason, and it's bad precedent that a person should be compelled to turn over such documents for general public perusal.

McCain should have done exactly what Obama has done--have the local authorities take a look and issue a statement verifying the document.

I should also note that BK never said or suggested that McCain was forced by a court to turn anything over; that was your question to his arguments limited to expectation and pressure, the same expectation and pressure that some here think shouldn't have been applied to Obama, suit or no suit.

BK provided as his example of why Obama should have to show his birth certificate a situation in which BK is LEGALLY REQUIRED to show it (at the DMV). Since that was HIS example, I asked BK to provide evidence of a President ever being LEGALLY REQUIRED to show his birth certificate. He didn't respond, "that's not what I meant," he answered, "McCain." As has even you've said, this was factually and substantially wrong. McCain was never LEGALLY REQUIRED to produce it, it wasn't even produced in the case by McCain's defense in the Hollander case.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

what is the harm if the "non-qualified" gets elected

There isn't a harm if you voted for a person who ended up being disqualified or not eligible for the job?

No more so than if the guy you voted for didn't win the election, is there?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

what is the harm if the "non-qualified" gets elected

There isn't a harm if you voted for a person who ended up being disqualified or not eligible for the job?

The people making these suits DIDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA. In fact, you can state that they had no plan to vote for Obama as they are alleging that his qualification for the job are suspect.

One voter does not have standing to sue on the assumption that in doing so they might allieve some harm that might come to someone else, anymore than I can sue on behalf of people held without habeus corpus rights by this administration.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well the one guy (the Dem) did, didn't he?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well the one guy (the Dem) did, didn't he?

Which Democrat? Berg? He filed the suit against Obama prior to Nov. 4. How could he possibly have voted for Obama is he question his basic qualification?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
There is no continuum between having no choice and having choices. That is an either/or situation. The comparison is spacious.

If Mr. Berg believes that one candidate is not qualified to be president because he does not meet the requirements, then his remedy is to vote for any of the SEVERAL candidates that did meet the qualifications.

You really believe that, even in what is clearly a two-party system de facto if not de jure? Thank god you're not a judge. There's more to "choice" than the mere number of people on the ballot. Hell, how many third-world dictators have had straw "opponents"?

Anyway, fortunately the SCOTUS has been less blasé about protection of an effective franchise (again that's effective, not merely "existent") than you:

The right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.
...
The Equal Protection Clause demands no less...[than] that each citizen have an equally effective voice in the election."

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (emphasis added)

Fine, granted, there's a "choice" between A) a nullity likely to be booted from office, B) the likely victor with whom you politically disagree, or C) some third party long-shot with whom you politically disagree somewhat less, as opposed to something like weighting your vote by 50%, but do you seriously think somebody making that choice has an equally effective opportunity to ensure that his/her political views will be implemented? If the vote's value is merely decreased, that's still of grave significance to the court, as a variety of civil rights cases have made clear while the south got more and more creative at ways to impair without quite "prohibiting."

Anything but blasé:

Especially since the franchise is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement ... must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.

Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 667 (1966) (emphasis added)

Originally posted by GePap
How could he show that the money and time he donated to the DNC went to the Obama campaign, and not, say, any one of MANY campaigns the Democratic Party was involved in? He couldn't. The issue then is the same as with spending tax dollars.

A) As I've said twice before, factual merits have nothing to do with standing analysis. Let me say it again just so there's no confusion: factual merits have nothing to do with standing analysis. What he can "show" in documentation about what money or billable hours went where is absolutely irrelevant.

B) Even assuming arguendo that factual merits mattered, which they don't, you're flat-out wrong on the elements of promissory estoppel anyway. It is not a contract with a promisor, nor unjust enrichment of a promisor, but detrimental reliance; i.e. the the promisor does not need to receive the benefit. A promisor's inducement to confer a benefit on a completely unrelated third party can also sustain the claim.

(1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1981)

Originally posted by GePap
So this is irrelevant to the discussion of Berg's case.

There are other cases which do include State officials, like one in the OP, and yet they were dismissed on the same standing grounds.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov BK provided as his example of why Obama should have to show his birth certificate a situation in which BK is LEGALLY REQUIRED to show it (at the DMV). Since that was HIS example, I asked BK to provide evidence of a President ever being LEGALLY REQUIRED to show his birth certificate. He didn't respond, "that's not what I meant," he answered, "McCain."

Mea culpa then if he seriously meant that McCain was actually forced by a court to turn it over, which would be factually false. However, he only replied to what you said about someone being "required" which could mean several things. One could be constitutionally "required" to disclose and additionally do so because he's "required" by the electoral consequences of public pressure, without having to be "required" by a binding court order.

Don't expect any sane individual to know for certain what BK means when he types stuff into his keyboard. I'm surprised you think you could ever know.

[Boris Godunov]

Don't expect any sane individual to know for certain what BK means when he types stuff into his keyboard. I'm surprised you think you could ever know.

Erm, but weren't you trying to divine this as well?

Given BK's history of stating ridiculously wrong things in the past, I don't feel I was remotely unjustified in taking him at face value, especially since I asked him for clarification and he responded by digging himself deeper. I do find it odd that any person would think "required" would mean the same as "pressured into." Seems to me that it stretches the meaning of the word far too much, especially since BK's example was of a legal requirement, not a matter of public pressure.

Of course, I could have also pointed out that at the DMV, he's not required to have an original copy of his birth certificate, a certified copy will do, and that he's not required to display it to the general public, only that he hand it to someone with the proper authority to review it and determine it's validity... but you'd think anyone would realize that.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Erm, but weren't you trying to divine this as well?

Yeah, we're both at least entitled to guess.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Given BK's history of stating ridiculously wrong things in the past, I don't feel I was remotely unjustified in taking him at face value, especially since I asked him for clarification and he responded by digging himself deeper. I do find it odd that any person would think "required" would mean the same as "pressured into." Seems to me that it stretches the meaning of the word far too much, especially since BK's example was of a legal requirement, not a matter of public pressure.

One can be politically pressured by a legal "requirement" without a court ever getting involved to officially mandate compliance with it. That could easily be called "required" in itself, especially when the chance of losing a hotly contested campaign makes a candidate feel "required" to mitigate virtually anything that harms his odds. But I won't kick that dead horse any longer. We're talking about Ben here, so who the hell knows. Perhaps the flying spaghetti monster and overlord Xenu both "required" that McCain turn it over immediately.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Darius871


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.

2004? Illinois? This is a suit that Keyes brought up after the election (in California). From the OP:

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California.

Again, far more people give a **** about Keyes than Berg.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo


2004? Illinois? This is a suit that Keyes brought up after the election (in California). From the OP:

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California.

Again, far more people give a **** about Keyes than Berg.

DOH!

Well, I find it halfway telling that I haven't come across it on any mainstream news sources, which goes to how publicized it is and will be, as does the Tribune article's calling Berg's case "the most famous," but you're right that Keyes will probably steal the spotlight, especially since he would have more standing as an AIP opponent on three states' ballots rather than a citizen. Oh well.

[Darius871]

P.S.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
just bloviating to be argumentative.

Er, why else would we be here?

Don't pretend like I actually give a **** about any of this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Which Democrat? Berg? He filed the suit against Obama prior to Nov. 4. How could he possibly have voted for Obama is he question his basic qualification?

Well that's even more of a hurt isn't it? Guy is a Dem, wants to vote for a Dem, but the Dem nominee may not be eligible. It debases his vote.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well that's even more of a hurt isn't it? Guy is a Dem, wants to vote for a Dem, but the Dem nominee may not be eligible. It debases his vote.

Precisely.

[TCO]

Good Navy for Canada.

Small family for Catholic.

Warm for Quebec.