Nitpick: “Chief Justice of the United States.” But who swore him in is less important than who ratified his election as President: the Electoral College, just as the Constitution requires.
Can Orly do lawyerin’ work at a court-martial, or is she limited to “practicing law” (I use the term loosely) in civilian courts?
Yes, military personnel may have civilian counsel in courts-martial.
Somehow, I have a feeling that a court-marshal will be even less tolerent to her BS then the civilian judge she pissed off.
Yep. The last Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Morrison Remick Waite, died March 23, 1888.
Nitpick: Yes, the formal title is “chief justice of the United States.” However, the phrase “chief justice of the Supreme Court” is a perfectly correct description of the position and need not be corrected.
Risking his career? How terrible for him- he’ll receive a dishonorable discharge and have to learn to live on minimum wage as a physician in the private sector. 
What worries me after reading the article is: how widespread is this belief amongst military personnel? You’re going to have nutjobs in any profession, but these are the people protecting us.
True - but that health insurance is socialist government healthcare. So really - this is just his plan to avoid the deathpanel when he retires.
Nitpick: only enlisted Soldiers are discharged (under the categories Honorable, General Under Honorable Conditions, Other Than Honorable, Bad Conduct, or Dishonorable).
Commissioned officers can be dismissed, which is the functional equivalent of a dishonorable discharge.
Barack Obama has been President for over a year. Did Lakin (I’m omitting his military intentionally as he seems to feel it doesn’t mean anything) just notice it? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Lakin suddenly decided he wasn’t obliged to follow orders at the same time those orders required him to go to Afghanistan. Apparently he could accept President Obama as his commander-in-chief as long as his military service wasn’t too difficult.
But once Lakin was given an order he didn’t like he suddenly became a barracks lawyer. I think he’s just looking to avoid active duty and his birther claims are just an excuse. I say court martial him and lock him up for dereliction of duty.
Since there have only been a dozen or so of these cases despite Orly Taitz actively soliciting soldiers to join her suits, not very.
Noted, thanks.
I thought that was obvious. There’s no way he actually believes this shit.
“*Another *missing case of morphine, private? What the hell’s going on here?”
That depends on how you want to view it. I suspect that he honestly believes that he believes. But at the same time, people have a knack for coming to believe things that suit their own interest when the pressure’s on. It’s not machination, that’s just the way we’re built.
Since this thread already has nitpicks, let’s add a couple more. The term for a military court is court-martial. A poster above used the correct plural form: courts-martial. Separation from the service has two parts: (1) characterization of service and (2) type of separation. The term Dishonorable Discharge is the most commonly known (in my experience) by the general civilian population. Dishonorable is the most severe of the negative characterizations. Discharge means that there is no more association, such as a Reserve obligation, with the Armed Forces.
Yes, but why didn’t he honestly believe that he believed when he wasn’t being shipped to Iraq? You can’t tell me he hasn’t received a single order in the last 14 months except the reassignment.
I don’t know. If he had said all this back in January of 2009, I’d still think he was nuts but I’d be willing to believe he was at least honest about it. The timing of him suddenly developing this belief (or at least developing the need to act on it) at the same time he was being ordered to deploy makes it look pretty calculated to me.
You know what would be the most amusing part of this stupidity of his? If he’s received a promotion since Obama became President!
Let’s note a couple of facts here.
This clown is wrong and deserves to be court-martialed. No question about that.
I find it interesting, though, that when this sort of thing cropped up in the last administration, and officers or enlisted personnel would attempt to substitute their own private opinions for lawful orders, they would find defenders here. What is the difference, really, between Lakin and the Watada case that was much discussed here? And why will Watada find some sympathy on this board but Lakin find none?
Watada was right and Lakin is wrong?
That said, I would have supported any judgment against Watada because he waited until he actually received deployment orders to challenge the legality of the war.
Obviously, that would set a very dangerous precedent. If Watada had requested to be released from his commission as soon as the war began, I’d have had no problem with his action. Same goes for Lakin (substituting Obama’s inauguration for the start of the war), although I’d have laughed at him.
ETA: It’s worth noting that Watada claimed he was willing to go to prison to make his point. Do you think any of the birther refusers are as sincere in their beliefs?