Yesterday, a docket entry appeared at the Alabama Supreme Court saying that a motion for oral arguments in the case of McInnish v. Chapman had been denied. Fogbow commenter BamaLaw indicates that this is an indicator of an imminent decision, likely today.
If indeed the decision comes down today, or next Friday, it will be a bitter end to a bitter month for the birthers, especially the Cold Case Posse fans. Rather than the month of major revelations from Mike Zullo, the arrests of the pesky Obots and the vindication of the much-maligned birther faithful, March is turning out to be comprised of rumors of further delays from the Cold Case Posse, the castigation by a former member of the Posse for unprofessional behavior and finally the loss of a case before a sympathetic judge where the affidavit of Mike Zullo was a central part of the argument.
Oh the humanity!
Update:
I didn’t know when I wrote this article that an old acquaintance had died earlier in the week. I got the phone call while I was in the back yard cleaning up from a large tree limb that finally fell after hanging broken for over a year. It hung vertically by a slim connection and we called it the “Sword of Damocles.”
After the call I rushed to get cleaned up and travel the 30-something miles to the funeral to get there in time. I saw a few old friends, not as many as I would have hoped to see there. Her death had been anticipated for some time, but still was a shock when it came. My friend, who led a very long and fruitful life, was committed to sacred ground by loving family and her community of faith.
The McInnish case has been hanging for a year or so, and like my tree limb, there was no question about where it would fall, only when. The Alabama Supreme Court has finally handed down its decision, affirming the dismissal of the case and now, like my limb, it can be hauled off to the trash pile of fallen limbs and failed birther lawsuits.
Something that I have always found to be of interest in this particular appeal is that it is an entirely Republican affair. The two plaintiffs are Republicans. The defendant is the Republican Secretary of State and all nine Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court are Republicans.
The only non-Republican input is an amicus brief supporting the positions of the Secretary of State submitted on behalf of the Alabama Democratic Party
This is the website to check for decisions in Alabama tomorrow:
http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/
I’ve noticed, though, that the page usually doesn’t get updated until the afternoon, so BamaLaw will probably have the first word at The Fogbow sometime in the morning.
Speaking of which, they’ve been doing dirigibles on TCM tonight.
No offense, but this sounds a bit like birther quality news (unsourced claim in passive voice).
Hm, that would mean that Sharon Rondeau’s anonymous source was right? Or was it just a lucky guess? (Given that many birthers have been posting “decision due this Friday” for weeks earlier this year.)
I’m actually surprised.
Indeedy. They’ve staked all their hopes on the trifecta (The Zullo Shattering, Laity’s SCOTUS case and the AL SC case) happening this month, in their favour, of course. (In their twisted view, this coincidence has “deeper” or “higher” meaning, as in “finally we will win”.)
Watching them deal with the triple disappointment will be almost as sweet as after Obama’s re-election when all the “Romney landslide, you Obots will land in jail” people suddenly disappeared from the birther echo chambers.
I don’t think we know the date on the order about oral arguments. From BamaLaw’s post, it sounds like it was just posted on the public docket yesterday, but the lawyers for the plaintiffs might have received the news last week and Sharon Rondeau somehow got word of it.
Actually, THIS is the link to the website for SCOAL opinions:
http://judicial.alabama.gov/supreme_opinions.cfm
It updates immediately upon the entries being published.
They don’t seem to like foreigners; the page doesn’t load from my German IP, only if I switch to my US proxy…
In the minds of the birfers, perhaps.
As I understand the opinions expressed by the real lawyers here and elsewhere, in the real world of the courts (assuming that isn’t an oxymoron…), it was “of no concern”.
Maybe they will get a dissenting opinion from the birther judges, and then they can pretend that’s the decision of the court.
Moore is a complete whackjob, he’s the poster child for why judges should not be elected, and I wouldn’t put anything past him.
I appreciate what you are saying.
I consider the claim credible because I know who it came from (BamaLaw’s real name isn’t public but I know it) and the person making the claim is someone who is in a position to know what’s on the Alabama Supreme Court docket. The claim that an oral argument had been denied is wholly unremarkable. BamaLaw has sufficient experience to be considered and “expert” in what the Alabama Supreme Court typically does, and so I consider the opinion that it means a decision is likely to be issued soon well founded.
That doesn’t mean the opinion will be issued today–no one is making that claim, but based on other cases at the Alabama Supreme Court, it is likely.
The other site, in my experience, doesn’t get updated until the following week.
Whether they do or not, it would definitely result in another wave of “let’s write angry letters to Congress” (BR) and “file motions for reconsideration in long-dead cases” (Orly).
Or maybe maybe we can hope Taitz will start filing requests for judicial notice of the dissenting opinion?
Or maybe a separate concurring opinion with some statements about the need to better vet the candidates.
Not as far-fetched as one might think: I just saw a birther claim that the dissent in Wong Kim Ark somehow “proved” that it was wrongly decided (and conveniently ignoring the way it’s been reaffirmed by all the cases that reference it).
While not always the case, it appears that the usual Alabama Supreme Court practice is to create the PDF files of the decisions about 11 AM Eastern time (10 AM local time).
For those who are doubters (mostly birthers) and for those wondering when the ORDER Denying Oral Argument came down, below is a link to said Order…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/213693533/2014-03-20-SCOAL-McInnish-v-Chapmen-OrDER-Denying-Oral-Argument
Thanks, I’ll update the article.
It better not have layers, or FORGERY.
Breaking news from BamaLaw: “The Court has released its decision. AFFIRMED. No Opinion. Two lengthy concurrences and Moore & Parker dissent.”
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=8405&view=unread#p597282
The “real” name of BamaLaw” is a “Secret de Polichinelle”. It is not as if he were Rumpelstilzchen….
As predicted, the court affirmed. Another Birther loss. I saw a bit of anticipation from the birthers recently that they were sure Chief Justice Moore was going to get them a win this time. The birther tears shall now commence. Mmmmm! Sweet, salty and flowing generously.
This article has been updated to add:
I didn’t know when I wrote this article that an old acquaintance had died earlier in the week. I got the phone call while I was in the back yard cleaning up from a large tree limb that finally fell after hanging broken for over a year. It hung vertically by a slim connection and we called it the “Sword of Damocles.” After the call I rushed to get cleaned up and travel the 30-something miles to the funeral to get there on time. I saw a few old friends, not as many as I would have hoped to see there.
Going back to the Sword metaphor, the McInnish case has been hanging for a year or so and like my tree limb, there was no question about where it would fall, only when. Since this article was written, the Alabama Supreme Court handed down its decision, affirming the dismissal of the case and now, like my limb, it can be hauled off to the trash pile of fallen limbs and failed birther lawsuits.
Link to the SCOAL Affirmation and Special Writing…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/213705768/2014-03-21-Scoal-Mcinnish-v-Chapmen-Affirmed
Piffle. I broke the story 3 minutes earlier.
😛
Dang, Doc, that’s poetry. Just throw in some line breaks and there you are.
Poetic justice 🙂
Thanks. With that in mind I removed some jarring connective text. I also added another paragraph that attempts to contrast the burial by loving family and friends with the discarding of the fallen limb and dismissed lawsuit.
Thanks. I should have said “a website.”