Reading the decision of judge Thomas McPhee dismissing the Linda Jordan lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s inclusion on the Washington state ballot, I couldn’t help remembering the words of US District Judge James Robertson dismissing Hollister v. Soetoro way back in 2009:
The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
Judge Robertson concluded that the frivolous suit was brought for an “improper cause.” Now a judge in Washington state chides plaintiff Linda Jordan for arguing what she must know is untrue in her lawsuit, Jordan v. Secretary of State Reed. Judge McPhee wrote:
… all the so-called evidence offered by plaintiff has been in the blogosphere for years, in one form or another, so too has all the law rejecting plaintiffs allegations. I can conceive of no reason why this lawsuit was brought, except to join the chorus of noise in that blogosphere. The case is dismissed.
I think both judges recognize that this is an Internet controversy, and not one involving real law and real evidence, and not one that should be resolved by a court.
Apart from the Internet remarks, Judge McPhee affirmed (citing Robinson v. Bowen and Keyes v. Bowen appellate decisions) an important principle that has emerged from the ashes of crashed birther lawsuits: the courts have no constitutional role in judging the eligibility of candidates for President and Vice President, that role being reserved for the Congress. He said:
I conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The primacy of congress to resolve issues of a candidate’s qualifications to serve as president is established in the U.S. Constitution, in the passages cited by the Secretary of State.
The decision exhibits much knife twisting as it sarcastically dismisses Jordan and the rest of the birthers: