Main Menu

Appeals court nixes Barnett

A court rejecting a birther lawsuit isn’t news any more, but for completeness, I announce that US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal by a long list of plaintiffs, including Alan Keyes and Pamela Barnett of the US District Court in California’s dismissal of Barnett v Obama.

The Circuit Court agreed that the case should be dismissed because it doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement of standing; however, they state that their reason for arriving at this conclusion differs from that of the District Court. The difference is minor and has to do with the reasoning behind dismissal of the political candidates’ claims. While the District Court assumed that the candidate plaintiffs had standing, but since Obama had already become President before the suit was filed, their grievance could not be redressed by the courts. The Circuit Court said that those individuals were no longer candidates by the time the suit was filed. In either case, the court left the door open, and clearly open, to suits from political candidates challenging the eligibility of other candidates so long as the suits are filed before the election is over.

The 29-page opinion concluded:

The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs quo warranto, FOIA or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant’s emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED.

Read more on Barnett v Obama (aka Keyes v Obama):

Print Friendly

, ,

22 Responses to Appeals court nixes Barnett

  1. avatar
    Arthur December 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

    Dang it all; I thought that THIS time we really had a case!!! WE THE PEOPLE have been cheated again by a gangster cabal that has taken over all levels of the government. Does no one respect The Constitution???? Those activist judges make my red, white and blue blood boil!

    Until we frog-march this purported president out of OUR HOUSE, I promise not to make any new hires to my hair-waxing/dog-walking business!!!

    And don’t forget to send Lady Liberty words of support, as I’m sure she’s feeling a little Russian blue today. Oh, and to you kool aid-drinking Obotskis, Lady Liberty is Dr. Orly Taitz!

  2. avatar
    Majority Will December 22, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    Arthur:
    Dang it all; I thought that THIS time we really had a case!!!WE THE PEOPLE have been cheated again by a gangster cabal that has taken over all levels of the government. Does no one respect The Constitution????Those activist judges make my red, white and blue blood boil!

    Until we frog-march this purported president out of OUR HOUSE, I promise not to make any new hires to my hair-waxing/dog-walking business!!!

    And don’t forget to send Lady Liberty words of support, as I’m sure she’s feeling a little Russian blue today. Oh, and to you kool aid-drinking Obotskis, Lady Liberty is Dr. Orly Taitz!

    [golf clap]

  3. avatar
    Sean December 22, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    The judge is a traitor.

  4. avatar
    Arthur December 22, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    Sean: The judge is a traitor.

    It was a THREE judge panel–we’ve got three traitors, Sean!!!

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 22, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    The LA Times story is a mess. They conflated “Attorney General or the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia” into a single “US Attorney General.”

    G: The story got some minor media coverage:

  6. avatar
    G December 22, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    Hey, well that is one more example of how the media makes innocent errors in stories all the time.

    …but I’m sure Aputzo can be fooled into glomming onto that error and treating it like some new holy grail and try to launch another crusade and frivolous case based on what the LA Times accidentally said instead of what the courts actually said… and then some how turn around when he loses and blame you for it in his latest tantrum… ;)

    Dr. Conspiracy: The LA Times story is a mess. They conflated “Attorney General or the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia” into a single “US Attorney General.”

  7. avatar
    Joey December 22, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    Footnote #2 in the 9th Circuit’s decision:
    2
    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”

    In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship on anyone born in the United States, regardless of his parents’ citizenship. 169 U.S. 649, 650 (1898).

  8. avatar
    John Reilly December 23, 2011 at 12:51 am #

    I think the decision is helpful for the birthers in future litigation as it allows standing to other candidates. We will see the case cited in all sorts of challenges. Ms. Dr. Taitz has already realized that, in a way, but her need to prove to Mr. Dummit is warping her thinking.

    Query: If you warp already warped thinking, does it straighten out?

  9. avatar
    G December 23, 2011 at 1:12 am #

    I think you are over reading into it.

    The ruling did NOT grant standing for those cases, it simply allowed that particular class MIGHT have standing under particular circumstances, but didn’t need to go further than that as it said such point was moot in this case, because it was filed too late. Its point was focused on the latter fact – that the timing of the filing rendered any and all arguments relevant to a “candidate” class moot. My point here is that the case didn’t open up any new window of opportunity for them that wasn’t already potentially there.

    As has been discussed on this site, there has been expectation that during the election campaign itself, a window opens in which another candidate running might have a valid claim to argue standing. So really, this ruling is nothing new in these regards and is pretty much saying what we’ve been anticipating and speculating about anyways.

    I agree that it might help them in citing some references of particular cases in which that possibility exists, but that’s about the extent of help it gives them. Whether those particular case citings and their underlying justifications will actually be relevant to some future case brought by a candidate on this matter…remains to be seen.

    John Reilly: I think the decision is helpful for the birthers in future litigation as it allows standing to other candidates. We will see the case cited in all sorts of challenges. Ms. Dr. Taitz has already realized that, in a way, but her need to prove to Mr. Dummit is warping her thinking.Query: If you warp already warped thinking, does it straighten out?

  10. avatar
    Bob December 23, 2011 at 4:13 am #

    “Finding he was not eligible to be a candidate on the ballot in the November 2010 election, a Marion County Circuit judge has ordered Indiana’s Republican Sec. of State Charlie White removed from office and replaced by his Democratic challenger . . .”

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9005

  11. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 23, 2011 at 7:07 am #

    Bob:
    “Finding he was not eligible to be a candidate on the ballot in the November 2010 election, a Marion County Circuit judge has ordered Indiana’s Republican Sec. of State Charlie White removed from office and replaced by his Democratic challenger . . .”

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9005

    Unfortunately for the birfers, this does NOT mean anything. Presidents are elected by the votes of the electors and have their election validated by Congress. They also run on the same ticket as the vice-presidential candidates, meaning you would have to PROVE that Biden was not eligible either to have McCain as President.

  12. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 23, 2011 at 7:31 am #

    I wish I could have caught up with Orly when she was explaining about her post (Slavic word for fasting).

    But here is my Christmas podarok to her:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nze8B39OB0k

    For those who do not know what I am hinting at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenka_Razin
    Check the last chapter “In Russian culture and folklore” and particularly stanzas seven and eight, which many Russians know by heart (rodnaya means “natural born, by the way).

    My Christmas cadeau for Lupin is the version for the Vatellite carnival barkers:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4gKZlUnqI
    (knowing what örly” means in Russian, I rather like the words “la colombe a soumis l’aigle”, the video is also the only one on YT to show what happens during the Russian song)

    Not a death treat.

  13. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 23, 2011 at 7:33 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Unfortunately for the birfers, this does mean anything.

    Er, that should of course read “this does NOT mean anything”. I am starting to understand why Berg always puts the word NOT in capitals and underlines it.

  14. avatar
    joyeagle December 23, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    The order cited an example where it had previously heard a case involving challenges made to a candidate for election. So in this instance the 9th Circuit suggested that it would be likely to hear such a case. However, I agree that no “new” door has been opened.

    G: The ruling did NOT grant standing for those cases, it simply allowed that particular class MIGHT have standing under particular circumstances, but didn’t need to go further than that as it said such point was moot in this case, because it was filed too late. Its point was focused on the latter fact – that the timing of the filing rendered any and all arguments relevant to a “candidate” class moot. My point here is that the case didn’t open up any new window of opportunity for them that wasn’t already potentially there.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 23, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    While this is possible in a state court, it is not possible for a US President to be removed by a court; this is the application of the “political question” doctrine.

    Bob: “Finding he was not eligible to be a candidate on the ballot in the November 2010 election, a Marion County Circuit judge has ordered Indiana’s Republican Sec. of State Charlie White removed from office and replaced by his Democratic challenger . . .”

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 23, 2011 at 9:06 am #

    FIFY.

    Paul Pieniezny: Er, that should of course read “this does NOT mean anything”. I am starting to understand why Berg always puts the word NOT in capitals and underlines it.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 23, 2011 at 9:10 am #

    Only that doesn’t work. According to the “political question” doctrine, the courts will not act when the Constitution explicitly grants responsibility to another branch of government. In this case the Congress is given the power to remove the President.

    Paul Pieniezny: They also run on the same ticket as the vice-presidential candidates, meaning you would have to PROVE that Biden was not eligible either to have McCain as President.

  18. avatar
    realist December 23, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Only that doesn’t work. According to the “political question” doctrine, the courts will not act when the Constitution explicitly grants responsibility to another branch of government. In this case the Congress is given the power to remove the President.

    While I agree only Congress has the power to remove a sitting president, (and in addition there are the various successions under the 25th Amendment) I certainly believe there are avenues for the courts to determine whether a presidential candidate is eligible to be placed on the ballot.

  19. avatar
    Joey December 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    realist: While I agree only Congress has the power to remove a sitting president, (and in addition there are the various successions under the 25th Amendment) I certainly believe there are avenues for the courts to determine whether a presidential candidate is eligible to be placed on the ballot.

    I thought that the Constitution only addressed assuming the office of the presidency under the requirements of Article 1, Section 2. Don’t 50 state laws plus the federal district’s laws determine whose name can be placed on a ballot in any state?

  20. avatar
    Reality Check December 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    It is worth noting that this court decision overturned a decision of the Indiana Recount Commission that was made in an election contest. The 2008 presidential election was not contested by anyone involved. I see where the Indiana ruling has just been stayed by the Indiana Supreme Court.

    Bob:
    “Finding he was not eligible to be a candidate on the ballot in the November 2010 election, a Marion County Circuit judge has ordered Indiana’s Republican Sec. of State Charlie White removed from office and replaced by his Democratic challenger . . .”

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9005

  21. avatar
    G December 23, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    We *are* saying the same thing. I did also made reference to that example in my post, towards the same point you are making.

    joyeagle: The order cited an example where it had previously heard a case involving challenges made to a candidate for election. So in this instance the 9th Circuit suggested that it would be likely to hear such a case. However, I agree that no “new” door has been opened.