Apart from the unfortunate and erroneous AP wire story saying Obama had been ordered to appear in Atlanta this Thursday in the administrative hearing of Farrar v. Obama, there’s not much to stimulate enthusiasm in the general public. Without Obama on the stand, as we approach the 100th birther failure, most folks have long run out of interest in birther lawsuits. (I use the word “unfortunate” because it may result in lots of people showing up at the hearing hoping to see the President, creating unnecessary confusion and congestion at the Justice Center.)
We specialists (Birthers and the anti-birthers) know that there is something different about this case. No one is saying that it will be dismissed like all the others: the law in Georgia is different. Knowledgeable folks think that the judge will decide the merits of the birther claim against Barack Obama. So in the Birther Universe, this is a big deal.
Interest in the case is reflected in traffic at this web site, which has reached levels not seen since last August, around the time of Orly Taitz’s first court appearance in Hawaii. The percentage of first-time visitors is up, indicating I think people trying to find out more, via search engine, about a story they have seen. (It still only about one fourth the interest generated by the release of the long form in April.)
I commented before that anti-birthers are not criticizing Judge Malihi for ruling against Obama. I found an exception. Some have argued that the judge should have dismissed parts of the case, specifically the plaintiffs who are not Georgia voters because the law grants rights to challenge only to Georgia voters. This oversight, however, is not material to the outcome.
Not being a lawyer, I’m not qualified to criticize Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski; however, it seems that Jablonski is not taking the case seriously enough with his poorly-argued motion to quash the subpoena. Jablonski seems to think that he can ridicule his way through the case. While the case is ridiculous, judges, in my limited experience, are not concerned whether the litigants are cranks, but what the law says. Jablonski would do well to focus on the law and let Orly Taitz discredit herself.
Over the next few days, I will be focused on Atlanta. It’s the first genuine news story I’ve had in a long time.