Can we talk about Clarence Thomas and the Obama citizenship thing (again)?

[xanthous]

What is Thomas' motivation for putting this citizenship thing forward for closed session review on Dec 5, after it's been rejected at several levels?

I thought this whole thing was old and over until it was brought up at the Thanksgiving dinner table tonight and then I found out that this Dec 5 thing is true.

What's the motive:
A) Actual concern
B) Putting it to bed once and for all, at the SC level
C) Grandstanding of some kind
D) Other?

[Czarcasm]

Is there a non-blog source for this document?

[TWDuke]

Huh? The blog links directly to the document on the Supreme Court's own site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm.

[Blank Slate]

Maybe it's personal.

Obama was asked during the first presidential debate which supreme court justice he would not have nominated and he named Thomas:

I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time, for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution...

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by TWDuke

Huh? The blog links directly to the document on the Supreme Court's own site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm.

Sorry-somehow missed the link when skimming through.

[Jeeves]

This won't actually go anywhere right? Scalia, Thomas might vote to let it proceed, but sureley ether Roberts or Alito will refrain. It has to have 4 votes for it to be argued right?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Jeeves

This won't actually go anywhere right? Scalia, Thomas might vote to let it proceed, but sureley ether Roberts or Alito will refrain. It has to have 4 votes for it to be argued right?

Depends on the motivation. If they really just want to put this idea to rest, then the best thing to do would be to rule on it.

[bup]

I disagree. It sets a precedent (not in the legal sense, necessarily), that this kind of frivolous lawsuit is worth considering. I foresee a lot more of these suits if they hear this one.

Also, it won't settle anything for anybody who isn't already convinced Obama and McCain both meet citizenship qualifications for POTUS. Quoting some comedian, "you can't fix stupid."

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by bup

Quoting some comedian, "you can't fix stupid."

Ron White

[mswas]

Maybe he is doing it so they can just settle the issue and decide on it so that it's clearer in the future. It doesn't necessarily need to be a pernicious reason.

[whorfin]

Originally Posted by mswas

Maybe he is doing it so they can just settle the issue and decide on it so that it's clearer in the future. It doesn't necessarily need to be a pernicious reason.

Let's remember that the issue before the supreme court is NOT anyone's citizenship, or the citizenship requirements for president. The appeal is from an appellate court affirming that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring such a suit.

So whatever the supreme court decides (and I'd be shocked if four votes could be found to grant cert), it won't be on citizenship-it'll be whether (I forget whether this plaintiff is Berg or the other guy) can even assert such a claim; even if the Court lets the suit go forward, it'll go back to the district court for further proceedings, which will also likely knock it out-and even if at the end of the day if the tin-foil hat brigade's strongest claims about Obama are right, the issue will likely be in the Court again whenever there's a final decision on 1) the facts, and 2) what they mean.

I can't myself understand why Thomas even put the case to conference--the issue before the court isn't interesting, and in such a case (possible constitutional issue, very poorly presented), the court almost always chooses not to grant cert, if for nothing else than to wait for the issue to be properly presented (and avoid a case that they'll almost inevitably need to hear twice).

IANAL.

[mswas]

Heh, maybe he's trying to prove Obama right that he's an unintellectual half-wit not qualified for the position.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by whorfin

Let's remember that the issue before the supreme court is NOT anyone's citizenship, or the citizenship requirements for president. The appeal is from an appellate court affirming that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring such a suit.

So whatever the supreme court decides (and I'd be shocked if four votes could be found to grant cert), it won't be on citizenship-it'll be whether (I forget whether this plaintiff is Berg or the other guy) can even assert such a claim; even if the Court lets the suit go forward, it'll go back to the district court for further proceedings, which will also likely knock it out-and even if at the end of the day if the tin-foil hat brigade's strongest claims about Obama are right, the issue will likely be in the Court again whenever there's a final decision on 1) the facts, and 2) what they mean.

I can't myself understand why Thomas even put the case to conference--the issue before the court isn't interesting, and in such a case (possible constitutional issue, very poorly presented), the court almost always chooses not to grant cert, if for nothing else than to wait for the issue to be properly presented (and avoid a case that they'll almost inevitably need to hear twice).

IANAL.

You may have answered the question underlying the second half of your post with the first half. Thomas is many things, some good and some morally objectionable from my own perspective, but one thing I think most people would agree on is that he's not a nutjob. To have done this, he must have had some purpose.

Might it be that that purpose is to get binding precedent in place nationally -- which only SCOTUS can do -- regarding this sort of frivolous suit? Advancing squirrelly theory X based on your supposed standing as a citizen/taxpayer/voter has been a perennial clog on the time of the courts, if only to dismiss such suits with a "Not only No but Hell No" ruling.

With a binding national precedent that such people do not have standing, the staff (as opposed to judges) will be able to reject such filings out of hand, as violative of the law of the land.

Alternatively, Thomas may have chosen this to even more tightly restrict who has 'standing' in Federal courts, something both he and Scalia (and the late Chief Justice Rehnquist) were avid about.

[whorfin]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

You may have answered the question underlying the second half of your post with the first half. Thomas is many things, some good and some morally objectionable from my own perspective, but one thing I think most people would agree on is that he's not a nutjob. To have done this, he must have had some purpose.

Might it be that that purpose is to get binding precedent in place nationally -- which only SCOTUS can do -- regarding this sort of frivolous suit? Advancing squirrelly theory X based on your supposed standing as a citizen/taxpayer/voter has been a perennial clog on the time of the courts, if only to dismiss such suits with a "Not only No but Hell No" ruling.

With a binding national precedent that such people do not have standing, the staff (as opposed to judges) will be able to reject such filings out of hand, as violative of the law of the land.

Well, you and I differ on the quality of Mr. Justice Thomas' constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence. That doesn't mean he's a nutjob, but it does mean that, IMHO, if you got 10 scholars and 10 judges to pick the 10 most qualified SCOTUS nominees when he was nominated for SCOTUS, that he wouldn't appear on all that many lists. But that's beside the point-I don't want to engage on the general quality of his jurisprudence.

Your response assumes that SCOTUS precedent (or influential lower court precedent) is not now in existence regarding this kind of suit. Having read the lower court opinion, it seems that (1) there is plenty of such precedent. (even though IANAL, I can see the judge has plenty to throw the suit out on. )

The District judge in Berg (cite: http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpres...rg_v_obama.pdf) cites a number of cases to support the conclusion that voters just don't have standing in this kind of case---having looked at the opinion, and just grabbed a few that seemed to be clearly on point, we have Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992), Lance v. Coffman, 127 S.ct. 1194, 1198 (1997), Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the war, 418 U.S. 208, 220-01 (1976) Crist v. Comm'n on Presidential Debates, 262 F.3d 193, 194 (2d Cir. 2001), and jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713, 716-18 (N.D. Tex, 2000).

Further, (2) Each of the two suits, berg, and whoever-it-is, were dismissed promptly. To get a more solid or "easier" dismissal, one would need an order restricting a particular plaintiff from filing (which can be done, but is very rarely done, and is of questionable propriety). In other words, courts ARE dismissing these cases out of hand (as they should be). Doesn't mean a plaintiff with more time/money than sense can't appeal them, but I don't see how much "easier" a dismissal there can be.

(3) If the Court really meant to act to restrict standing, again i don't know why they'd pick a case that's not even close. if, hypothetically, they were to try to do that, they'd probably pick a case where standing was found below-to instruct lower courts not to find standing there. Here, there's no reason to instruct lower courts not to find standing-they can do so all on their own.

[whorfin]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

With a binding national precedent that such people do not have standing, the staff (as opposed to judges) will be able to reject such filings out of hand, as violative of the law of the land.

And I hope the staff don't reject such filings out of hand at the district court level. Interpreting binding precedent is for judges-staff look at whether papers are properly formatted, served, etc, but I should hope they don't evaluate the subject matter of the complaint. Whether someone's argument has legal merit is the classic question of law-it's something that you and I may argue about, but neither means anything unless one of us is a federal judge.

Similarly, questions of standing require analysis of the pleadings, the relevant case law, and the constitution-these are things for a judge to do. It may well be that clerks/staff attorneys draft these decisions in practice, but they don't mean anything till signed by a judge-he's the one the constitution gives the power to to evaluate cases, and issue orders.