On the eve of a decision by federal Judge Wingate in Mississippi, Orly Taitz filed something that delayed the decision in the long-running Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi case, including punking comments from her own web site. Now she’s filed even more “stuff” with a motion today for leave to file new facts and opinions (h/t to NBC).
Her motion is accompanied by one item we pretty much expected, the Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman. She thinks this minority opinion is something the Court should look at. While on the surface this might seem to be a tiny help to Taitz since Judge Moore opined that the presidential eligibility questions do not become moot after the election because the same issues are likely to repeat, and his view that in Alabama the Secretary of State has an obligation under law to investigate questionable candidates, it actually undermines her position because Judge Moore further states that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear eligibility cases, citing Hutchinson v. Miller:
Had the framers wished the federal judiciary to umpire election contexts, they could have so provided. Instead, they reposed primary trust in popular representatives and in political correctives.
The second item is one less familiar, the oral argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Lindsay v. Bowen case. In this case California Secretary of State Bowen denied a 2012 ballot position to Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate Peta Lindsay because she was under age. Bowen argues that she has the authority to do this. Taitz argues that in Mississippi, the Secretary of State must investigate candidates and exclude ineligible ones.
While neither of these two items is precedential, I can understand why someone grasping at straws might submit them; however, what took me totally by surprise was the appearance of
The Orly Taitz Super PAC
“No one expects the Orly Taitz Super PAC!”