No ruling in ‘birther' challenge
After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.
Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearin when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing.
"It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.
"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied.
more:http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html
qb
(5,924 posts)I wonder how Judge Malihi plans to wrap this up without embarrassing his state any further.
Malihi is an administrative hearing officer. This was an administrative proceeding, not a judicial one.
The only outcome is that Malihi will send his findings of fact to the Georgia Secretary of State.
There was no appearance by counsel for the president or the GA Democratic party. Instead, they sent a copy of the certified HI birth certificate to the GA SoS, and have essentially dared him to take adverse action, regardless of what kind of circus Malihi wants to watch unfold before him.
JohnnyRingo
(18,580 posts)And why would the president have to accompany the document to prove it's very existance? It's not like he has to hold it up next to himself and say "look, it's me".
This is just using the court for political grandstanding. I know Georgia is a Republican haven, but I believe any state that takes the Democratic incumbant off the ballot can expect a serious uprising of it's people.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And you are correct that Barack Obama is not competent to testify to the circumstances of his birth anyway.
Anyone's personal statement of where they were born is hearsay, since nobody remembers having been born.
Absentee ballots for the GA primary, incidentally, have already been printed and mailed.
MGKrebs
(8,138 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)So, no, do not dignify it by showing up in court.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)warming Obama that he ignores them at his "peril."
If the Secretary of State decided that Obama doesn't qualify for the ballot, are you so confident in a decision to reverse being made by the US Supreme Court in time for the election?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)certified copies of birth records provided by the various states will be called into question if not immediately invalidated. Then NO ONE born in the US will have any proof of their birth.
Do you seriously think any court would step on that effin' land mine?????????
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and write an opinion saying that that decision wouldn't set a precedent for any other case.
So what do I know?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And Obama does not need the Georgia delegates to be renominated. He'll have more than enough within a couple of weeks actually.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)In fact, the court would have no jurisdiction on this matter since the states have plenary authority to determine how they chose their electors to the Electoral College. The only time the federal courts have jurisdiction is if the state were to decide who gets on the ballot in a discriminatory manner that is illegal (for instance, on the basis of race, sex or any other prohibited reason). If Georgia decided tomorrow to require the candidate play parchesi for their electoral votes, they could.
The Wizard
(12,482 posts)Antonin Scalia issued a stay that stopped the recount that would have made Gore president. The Federal Government can supersede anytime.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)The basis of Bush v. Gore was an alleged 14th Amendment violation. In that case, because it implicated the Constitution, the Court arguably had jurisdiction to do so (I would argue the court never had jurisdiction given it was a political question). In any event, as far as I've seen, nobody has alleged a constitutional violation here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)If the SoS of Georgia is as stupid as he seems, his actions could well give rise to a federal case.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)However, there are a couple nuances. First, the state could argue that there is another reason to no recognize his citizenship (because it does not comply with Georgia Law). Second, and as a corollary to "First," the Supreme Court has read an exception into the full faith and credit clause which is that if the act of one state violates the "strong public policy" of the other state, the second does not have to recognize the act. You see this a lot in situations of marriage (same sex marriage for one...notwithstanding DOMA) but more commonly in issues of age of consent. In some states a 16 year old can marry or a 15 year old with parental consent. There are instances where states will not recognize that marriage because of the "exception" the Court has found.
Don't get me wrong, I think you bring up a very good point, but, as long as there is not a constitutionally impermissible way the state chooses its electors (for instance, if Georgia passed a law saying that only white folks could get their electoral votes), the state can do what it wants. If the state passed a law saying certain things were required on a birth certificate that were on a typical Georgia certificate that aren't on the Hawaii one, this would not be facially illegal. Any lawsuit would argue, in all likelihood successfully, that the law, though facially neutral, was not actually neutral and violated the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.
The bigger issue is why in THE hell are we having this discussion? I guess short of photographs of the birth happening and the placenta, certain will never believe it...or shall we say will continue to use this issue as a surrogate to these peoples' personal belief that "we call it the WHITE house for a reason."
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)though I'd prefer to do something more honorable like being a sex worker.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)I'm not that familiar with all these abbreviations, etc. What is k/r? or nt? etc.
yardwork
(61,408 posts)K&R, knr, etc. It's DU speak for "I agree with this OP so I'm recommending it and with this post I am "kicking" it back up to the top of the page.
nt and variations like /nt means "no text." That means that the post is confined to the subject line. For people on dial up and those who don't want to bother to read all the posts, just the subject line responses.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)in Florida in 2000?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That is, if the Georgia SoS decides to push it this far.
What I'm betting is that the SoS will chicken out, state that he has to rely on the 'trial' judge's finding of fact, and accept the certified BC.
If he doesn't, then he not only has the DOJ to contend with, but the State of HI. Full Faith and Credit, baby.
BeHereNow
(17,162 posts)"warning Obama that he ignores them at his peril?"
Really?
Really?
Did a Secretary of State actually SAY that?
REALLY??????
Un Friggin believable.
BHN
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Happyhippychick
(8,379 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)Critters2
(30,889 posts)FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)I remember watching the President's press conference where he produced the long form birth certificate. I felt so ashamed (and admittedly a little upset that he even tried to placate these nutjobs). I could never imagine a white President standing up there going to these lengths to "prove" he was born in the US. After all, John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, and this was never an issue. In addition, in the case of Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), the Supreme Court held a person born in the United States of parents foreign extraction (Swedish I believe) was a "natural born citizen."
This whole thing is sickening. It just goes to show that the right wing will never accept a democratic result they don't like and will do what they can to "overthrow" an elected leader. Frankly, however, we should take a lesson from their tenacity. We should have been this tenacious in challenging the legitimacy of Bush after the coup d'etat in 2000 where the Court installed him as president. We should never have let the public forget the travesty that was Bush v. Gore.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)When is this going to stop?
"Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote.
"Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.
"In response, Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. 'If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril,' Kemp wrote."
VWolf
(3,944 posts)that if you succeed in keeping our President off the ballot, you do so at your own peril.
What a bunch of racists. Let's see them go after Mittens over his Mexican ancestry.
usrname
(398 posts)They need to prove that Newt isn't a newt.
/He got better...
The Wizard
(12,482 posts)former penal colony anyway. This is like pissing into the wind.
onenote
(42,373 posts)At first, I thought it was a strange move for Jablonski to essentially ask Kemp to pull the plug on the whole thing -- whatever the merits of that request, if it had been granted it would have been like throwing gas on the fire. The birthers would be screaming that Obama clearly has something to hide and that's why they pressured/coerced/bribed (name your fantasy) Kemp to intervene.
But I suspect that the Obama team has this pretty well figured out. They wouldn't expect Kemp to pull the plug. Moreover, they would expect, as would any litigant that says in effect that he/she is going to ignore a proceeding to which they are a party, that they will be warned that they ignore the proceeding at their own peril. I've heard that said to litigants on a number of occasions and its not so much a threat as a simple statement of fact -- there are risks when you don't participate.
That being said, Kemp's response also made it clear, as Obama's team would expect, that ultimately the decision will be made by Kemp based on the evidence and law. So by simply submitting the birth certificate and citing the full faith and credit clause, Obama's team is able to set the stage for Kemp to decide that based on the relevant evidence --- a birth certificate that is on its face a valid document from another sovereign state -- Obama is eligible to be on the ballot. Case closed.
That would be the best outcome and I suspect its the one that the Obama legal team hopes for/expects.
If I'm wrong about this, I'm wrong. I certainly hope I'm right.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Full Faith and Credit.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)BeHereNow
(17,162 posts)We need to start calling KKKEMP'S office.
He should not go about threatening the POTUS without
some blow back from his fellow citizens, if not the SS.
BHN
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Arrrrgh.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Critters2
(30,889 posts)I'd agree with you. If we let 'em go now, after a period of open border, so the sane ones could move North, I'd be fine with it.
onenote
(42,373 posts)And in case you havent' noticed,there are some pretty conservative locations outside the south. Idaho isn't in the South and it has a republican governor, two republican senators and no Democratic house members. Indiana isn't much better. Iowa has given us Tom Harkin. Its also given us Steve King. Illinois has a Democratic governor and one Democratic Senator, but more republican house members than Democrats. Wisconsin? Not in the south, but some crazy shit's been going down there at the state level. Arizona and Texas are pretty red now, but they're getting a bit bluer. Are they in or out? Virginia was part of the confederacy, and its pretty much the definition of a purple state.
So what exactly would this version of the United States that you would be fine with look like?
Critters2
(30,889 posts)My point was that I'd be in favor of allowing those who once fought for the right to secede to do so now. Cuz, there is no Tom Harkin likely to be elected by Georgia.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Critters2
(30,889 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)nobody had the balls to subpoena cheney during that whole libby thing? I didn't think you could subpoena the president.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)We will just write him in.
Q: How do I cast a write-in vote?
A: Just as with older systems, the new electronic voting units allow voters to cast votes for write in candidates.
To vote for a write-in candidate, under the appropriate race touch the box marked Write In. A keyboard is then displayed on the screen. Simply type in the name of the candidate. When you are done, touch the box marked Record Write In. Your choice will then appear under the race.
Voters should note, however, that, under Georgia law, write in votes are only counted and compiled for those candidates who have filed an official notice of their write in candidacy.
http://www.georgiacounts.org/faqs.html
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Copy of statement and letter re Georgia election ballot challenge filed against Pres Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12515342
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(8,992 posts)Doc Holliday
(719 posts)"asinine lawsuit."
Alternate suggestions include "dumbasses at work" and "crony crackerism."
I lived in GA back in the early 80's. It was actually a pretty decent place to live back then.
SleeplessinSoCal
(8,992 posts)I think Chronic Defamation may be closests: http://www.personalinjurylawyer.com/Defamation.cfm
tclambert
(11,080 posts)LostinRed
(840 posts)This judge is a joke for even entertaining the beyond frivolous lawsuit. The state of Georgia should make crazy, see you next tuesday Orly pay for the courts time.
Hokie
(4,284 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)President Obama could stride into that hearing room and pee on that judge's desk, and the state ALJ wouldn't be interested in that, either.
Because the opinion of a state ALJ isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A state ALJ is not recognized or empowered by federal statute. They cannot issue any orders that alter or change federal law or policy. A subpoena from one of those pussies goes in the junk bin of the White House mail room.
If these chumps somehow do elicit a decision that removes the President from the ballot, The President going to send his federal investigators in to see who gets hauled off for it.
It's rather like a parking cop in a golf cart trying to chase down a limousine... with the President in it... for running a red light. Not feasible on multiple levels.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)...except that the "limo" didn't even "run a red light."
This is bullshit, plain and simple.
MGKrebs
(8,138 posts)There are no qualifications for appearing on a primary ballot besides paying the fee. Winning a primary doesn't win you a seat to any office so a political party can nominate anyone it wants for the primary. I think this is why the attorney objects to the SoS even referring this to the ALJ. There is no qualification standard to meet. There is nothing to investigate at this point.
Not only that, in presidential primaries we're not even really voting for a candidate, we are technically voting for electors to the convention.
Also, Obama has been qualified in all 50 states previously. I would think there would have to be some new evidence that was overlooked before a judge should even entertain a look at this case.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-153
MGKrebs
(8,138 posts)It has been pointed out to me that there is a qualification for the presidential primary in Georgia.
"Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought."
Not sure why, but that is what it says.
MGKrebs
(8,138 posts)Elections for president are different than others and aren't covered under that section. So the original premise still stands, in that the SoS shouldn't have referred this case because there is no possibility of not meeting the qualifications anyway, especially since we vote for electors, not the candidate.
I'm going to shut up on this now!