Main Menu

Tag Archives | US Supreme Court

What case?

Here’s a comment that appeared on The Free Republic forum:

Undoubtedly, the walls are closing in on Obama. Reed Hayes will serve as an unimpeachable witness before Roy Moore’s Alabama Supreme Court and from there the United States Supreme Court will have no options but to declare Obama ineligible.

With Roy Moore on our side and the fact that both of Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court and the others appointed by Clinton will have to recuse themselves from the case, the outcome is certain.

I was wondering exactly what case is before the US Supreme Court, is going to be. The Alabama Supreme Court is going to decide a narrow question of whether the Alabama Secretary of State does nor does not have an obligation to verify eligibility of candidates for office. The Republican secretary of state says “no.” The original trial court and the court of appeals have said “no.” And they are certainly not going to hear any testimony from anybody.

How is this going to make any difference to Obama. Even if the case went to the U. S. Supreme Court (and I find it hard to believe that a case solely involving Alabama law would be taken up by the U. S. Supreme Court, even if someone appealed it there, and the only way it would get appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, it seems to me, would be if the birthers LOST at the Alabama Supreme Court headed by Roy Moore.

There’s no rule at the U. S. Supreme Court requiring any justice to recuse themselves; it’s solely a personal decision. Given that there are not any justices on the Supreme Court showing signs of dementia, recusals won’t help. In fact, there has been no report that any U. S. Supreme Court justice has the slightest interest in hearing a birther case, and certainly none of the cases have been selected to be heard.

Birthers are such irrational optimists.

I left this comment for the Freepers; we’ll if it actually appears.

Some confusion there. First, the Alabama Supreme Court is not going to hear any witnesses. Appellate courts don’t do that; they decide questions of law.

The question of law before the Alabama Supreme Court is whether or not the Alabaman Secretary of State Chapman has a duty to investigate the eligibility of candidates for office in Alabama. Chapman says she doesn’t, and the original trial court and a court of appeal agreed. The question of Obama’s eligibility is not before the Alabama Supreme Court, despite attempts to argue that in plaintiffs’ briefs and the amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party.

The only way this goes to the US Supreme Court is if McInnish LOSES (your hopes in Roy Moore notwithstanding) and the Alabama Supreme Court affirms that Chapman had no duty to investigate candidates. McInnish could appeal but if he can’t win in Alabama with Roy Moore on the bench, how could you expect him to win before the US Supreme Court?

It is hard to see how the US Supreme Court would hear a case from Alabama that is solely a matter of Alabama law. And even if it were an eligibility case, the Supreme Court has declined on multiple cases to hear them.

As for recusal, and I presume you meant Obama’s appointees and not Clinton’s, there’s no rule that says that any Supreme Court justice has to recuse themselves for any reason. It’s their personal choice. [See update below]

I would suggest that you not be overly optimistic about this lawsuit, which I predict will fare no better than the 200-odd others lost plowing the same ground.


There actually is a statute about the recusal of federal judges, 28 U.S.C. 455. The problem with applying that statute to the Supreme Court in this case is that there is no higher court to enforce it, basically leaving the decision to the individual justice as I said. Generally, however, justices are not beholden to the president that appointed them, and so this is not a cause for recusal. The Supreme Court decides cases all the time where the administration or the President is a party, and justices do not recuse themselves in those cases.

High court rejects rehearing in Hollister

The denial by the Supreme Court of a request for reconsideration of its previous denial in Hollister v Soetoro1 was considered by me, even here in this den of Obama conspiracy stuff, too unimportant to warrant an article. It was a foregone conclusion; nothing really “happened”.

I wouldn’t be writing about it now except that CNN reported the story and it was picked up by a Fox News station in Kansas City, MO. So if the Supreme Court’s denial is not news, the CNN coverage is.

So, if you haven’t heard, Gregory Hollister asked the two justices appointed by President Obama to recuse themselves, and that the Court reconsider his petition to review the dismissal of his lawsuit over Obama’s eligibility.

However, the Court didn’t even ask President Obama to reply. No recusal, no reconsideration, end of story except that CNN reported it.

See also:

1Birthers can’t stomach the President’s name, much less his office, so they call him “Soetoro” after his Indonesian step father, and a name written on an Indonesian elementary school admission form.

Question for Mario Apuzzo (5)

Shoe Bang Award

(Not authentic image)

I notice that you from time to time cite favorably from the US Supreme Court Decision in Dred Scott v Sandford and you have said that the US Supreme Court Decision in United States v Wong Kim Ark is “bad law”.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts?

If you chose to respond, could you begin your comments with “Yes.” or “No.” before launching into the explanation?

[Mr. Apuzzo, flinging abuse, declined to answer this question and hereby wins the inaugural Obama Conspiracy Theories Shoe Bang Award.]

De Vattel appears in 1884 law review article

In ARE PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEROF? The American Law Review (Sep/Oct 1884) George D. Collins argues that only those born in the United States whose fathers are citizens, are themselves citizens.

This find by Leo C. Donofrio should provide some some discomfit to Mario Apuzzo who has been doggedly pursuing the two-citizen-parent rule.

Mr. Collins jumps right into the topic by attacking Lynch v. Clarke (New York 1844) denying that there is a common law of the United States (although he is quite ready to adopt the Swiss philosopher Vattel in lieu of a common law). Collins seems to think de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” represents international law rather than de Vattel’s philosophy of international law, but the facts are that de Vattel’s view of citizenship did not represent a consensus of national laws on citizenship; quite the contrary.

Finally Collins launches into racist screed against the Chinese:

Now it is evident that such persons [the Chinese] are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the privileges of an American citizen….

…yet under the common law rule the children of all persons, irrespective of race, who were born within the United States would be citizens. Continue Reading →

The Betrayal blog attacks Dr. C (Updated)

Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

Readers here may recall an article I published countering Leo Donofrio’s attack against Donofrio misfires. Donofrio had made the same mistake Mario Apuzzo made when he attempted to make Barack Obama into a current British Citizen through ignoring the repeal of portions of the British Nationality Act of 1948. One can see on the surface that the analysis is flawed because the conclusion is obviously something that the various British legislation did not intend. This is an application of the general principle: British legislators know their laws better than we do.

Nonetheless, I did make some mistakes in my analysis, pointed out by commenters here, and I hastily corrected my article, and did so several times, sometimes marked with [update] tags to indicate new material, and sometimes not.

Nobamas do not understand the concept of correcting mistakes, considering it somehow shameful (and this explains why they ignore contrary evidence and continue to push long-discredited speculation).  Well, my corrections have come to the attention of the Betrayal blog who said: endorsed analyst caught scrubbing false data after original publication of this report.

There is a difference between “data” and “conclusions” (but I guess “false data” sounds worse.) I replied at The Betrayal, and we’ll see if it passes moderation:

You people are so totally silly. Commenters on my blog pointed out some errors and I fixed them. Duh. Has The Betrayal never corrected a mistake? (well maybe not…)

This isn’t a game of “gotcha”. You don’t get points when I make a mistake. You get points when you are right, and the final result is that Donofrio is wrong.

[Update!] Continue Reading →

Natural Born in South Carolina

John Rutledge of South Carolina

John Rutledge of South Carolina

Much is made about a letter from John Jay of New York to George Washington during the Convention that drew up the Constitution of the United States, and exactly what Jay meant by “natural born citizen”. It may well be that his letter arrived in time for the convention’s deliberation (although it was never mentioned in the debate) and it may well be that the words “natural born citizen” in the Constitution were  taken from it, but when it comes to original intent, it doesn’t matter what John Jay meant, because John Jay was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he had no vote nor did he have any part in the debate. All the input he had to the process was the words themselves in his letter, not even an explanation of what he meant beyond someone who was not a “foreigner”.

Let’s focus on someone, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, John Rutledge of South Carolina.  Rutledge served as the Chief Judge of South Carolina (as well as its governor and as a justice of the US Supreme Court). Having received his legal education in London, he was a formidable presence in the court room (reportedly having lost only one case). John Rutledge was the Chairman of the Committee of Detail, the committee charged with drafting the Constitution draft that the delegates debated.  What did the laws of his own state of South Carolina, of which he was certainly familiar, say about citizenship?

In 1712 the [General Assembly of the colony of South Carolina]  reenacted certain English laws and among them the one of William III providing that a natural born subject might inherit estates even though his father or mother or the person he inherited from was an alien. This merely strengthened the rights of the natural born but did not change naturalization Its main interest lies in the fact that the assembly was in the habit of accepting English laws bodily.

The American Historical Review By John Franklin Jameson, Henry Eldridge Bourne, Robert Livingston Schuyler, American Historical Association, History Cooperative, JSTOR (Organization)

From this we see that natural born subjects in South Carolina could have an alien parent.