Judge Morris C. England, Jr., chief judge of the US District Court for Eastern California, denied Orly Taitz’ petition for an emergency temporary restraining order to stop a number of statutory and constitutional processes necessary to complete the election and inauguration of Barack Obama to a second term as President. England, after hearing all sides a couple of weeks ago, issued his written order yesterday, January 16. One of the reasons given by Judge England was the long string of losses in similar cases by Orly Taitz.
Reports of the hearing in Grinols v. Electoral College noted some rather testy exchanges between Taitz and the Judge, and little sympathy for her motion for a TRO. That clash is not evident in the final decision, which is even-toned and succinctly argued. The judge, in his formal ruling, said that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, a TRO requirement. They do not have a “fair chance of success”, he said, because the separation of powers set out in the Constitution prevents the Court from granting the relief requested, and that courts have repeatedly dismissed similar cases.
Judge England provides Taitz (and any birther who might think Taitz is getting a raw deal from this judge) with a remedial lecture on the US Constitution and separation of powers, and on the “political question” doctrine. Judge England concluded:
The Court finds that numerous articles and amendments of the Constitution together make it clear that the issue of the President’s qualifications and his removal from office are textually committed to the legislative branch, not the Courts.
…the question presented by Plaintiffs in this case—whether President Obama may legitimately run for office and service as President—is a political question that the Court may not answer.
Judge England then cites quite a number of birther lawsuits to show the likelihood that the current suit will also be dismissed. Taitz’ record comes into play, as the Judge concludes:
In the light of the previous decisions, as well as Plaintiffs’ attorney’s lengthy track record of repeating similar arguments in courts throughout the country, Plaintiffs simply cannot, in good faith, argue that their case is likely to succeed on the merits.
Read the decision: