Unlike Nathan Deal, SCOTUS says birtherism is frivolous

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement [Orly Taitz] challenging President Barack Obama’s citizenship.

….

Taitz sued in Georgia federal court on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes. Rhodes sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitz’s second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.

via Supreme Court upholds ‘birther’ sanction  | ajc.com.

Those wacky activist judges Alito and Thomas.

38 comments

  1. AubieTurtle says:

    How long before our resident birther, Harry, calls for Alito and Thomas to resign? They’re part of the conspiracy now!

    Anyone know why it is that she was allowed two shots at the Supreme Court? Does she get to go through all of the justices or is this the end of the road for her?

    Don’t feel too bad for Orly… even if she is not allowed to have someone else pay her fine for her, I’m sure she’ll get an equal amount or even greater donation from the birther club.

    • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

      This basically sums up the way I’ve felt about the birth certificate situation since it first came up. At this point, who cares where he was born? Of all the multitudes of unconstitutional things that our presidents do, why go after the one thing that seems to be hardest to prove?

      Example:
      Cash 4 Clunkers > more obvious > secret birth certificate.

    • AubieTurtle says:

      A non-issue… except to you. You posted just a day or two ago that Deal being a birther makes you want to vote for him more.

      You rolled around in the crazy, wear it like a man.

      • Harry says:

        I’m still a Birther, it’s a Constitutional issue with me and others but not a major hot button in the media. There are other issues to address. Politics is the art of the possible, as JFK said.

  2. Provocateur says:

    Chris apparently did not get the memo from Political Vine that this blog now has less than zero credibility:

    “Wins/Losses

    PV = 1
    PP = 0

    Credibility

    PV = 100%
    PP = – 100%

    Style*

    PV = 100%
    PP = 100%

    Substance

    PV = 100%
    PP = – 100%

    Influence on the GOP Landscape

    PV = 100%
    PP = – 100%

    * PP has a completely different style than PV, and for what PP does and how it does it, PV will acknowledge that their “style” is in a class all its own. [No comment necessary as to exactly how that “class” should be defined.]”

    http://politicalvine.com/politicalrumors/odds-and-ends/blogger-vs-blogger/

    • eschristian says:

      PV = winner & PP & Georgians = loser

      Yeah – PV accomplished it’s goal of getting a birther candidate under grand jury investigation & Charlie Rangel type ethic style who “hates teh gays & ghetto grandmothers” over the threshold in a runoff that will come back to haunt the GOP by November – way to go PV way to go!!!

      • eschristian says:

        Oh yeah – & PV when the indictment comes down (I predict mid-October 2010) & everyone sees Deal for the snake oil unethical person he is YOU OWN IT – remember this was your victory!!!

        Don’t whine or whimper or back away – this is your baby DEAL REAL!!!

    • I Am Jacks Post says:

      For realz. Chris is working out some personal issues. Unfortunately for us, his catharsis is occurring on the front page.

      Get over yourself, Chris. No matter how long you carry on your childish axe-grinding, your bitter-loser posts DO NOT equal 2,500 votes.

      • Provocateur says:

        It’s okay. If you keep track of how many people are ever on this blog via their link at the bottom of the page, no numbers visitors of any significance will know this post (or others like it) exist.

  3. Three Jack says:

    nice hijack dealheads. it’s going to be a blast watching you folks try to defend the newly anointed head crook in charge of the ga gop.

    simon must have gotten his general election purchase order from the raw deal campaign.

  4. B Balz says:

    http://likethedew.com/2010/08/11/the-deal-on-hate/

    Suggest the rabid anti-Rep. Deal, former Ms. Handel ‘sore losers and loser-ettes’ check out this site, it is your future.

    In November, y’all know your gonna ‘pull the lever” for Rep. Deal, so quit your whining and get back to work. Oh wait, you are out of a job because your candidate lost. My bad.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      BB,

      You are assuming people will blindly accept Deal. There is a large group of Republicans who will not vote for Deal. I fear the GOP has been seriously damaged and I do not believe both sides will fully unite behind Deal in November.

  5. Red Phillips says:

    I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, but I do think this issue needs a thorough public airing. The anti-birthers have often said, “If you don’t think Obama is eligible, then prove it in court.” But that supposes that you could actually get a fair hearing in court. Here not only did Taitz and her client not get a fair hearing, they got fined for even bringing the issue up. Clearly the message from this court is “go away, and don’t come back.” So I am sure that the “prove it in court” brigade will denounce this decision that denies a fair hearing.

    I have always thought it was naive to believe that this would be settled in court. There is no judge who wants this hot potato and they will find some way to get rid of it, as this judge did. It is the job of the press to investigate and get to the bottom of this and they have been stunningly incurious. The press (and that includes non-professional bloggers) is supposed to challenge the conventional wisdom and the powers that be, not be pristine conduits of pure unadulterated CW.

    • Loren says:

      “The anti-birthers have often said, “If you don’t think Obama is eligible, then prove it in court.””

      No they (we?) haven’t. The 100% failure rate of Birther lawsuits is certainly evidence of the worthlessness of the Birther cause, but that’s not the same as saying that the Birther case must be proven in court before it should be taken seriously.

      No, the Birther case will be taken seriously when it takes such things as evidence and logic seriously. When Birtherism stops relying on rumor, suspicion, anomaly-hunting, logical fallacies, and lies, and instead produces some actual concrete *evidence* of its claims. The fact that Birthers usually attribute the lack of supporting evidence to a sweeping conspiracy ought to be an indicator of its conspiracy-theory nature. Birtherism is just another in a long line of denialist claptrap, along with moon hoaxers, anti-vaxers, 9/11 Truthers, and Holocaust deniers.

  6. Quaker says:

    I fail to understand the whole “birther” thing. Two of my children were born in another country. Their mother was not a US citizen. I was not in the military or a member of the diplomatic corps. The kids were issued “certificates of Americans born overseas” by the embassy as well as birth certificates from the local country. Years later, those “certificates” were suffciient for the kids to be issued US passports – the ultimate proof of citizenship. They are “natural born citizens” by virtue of my citizenship and thus eligible to serve as President. So who cares if Obama was born in Kenya? His mother is a citizen – ’nuff said.
    While we’re at it, if you read the Constituution and apply modern rules of punctuation, only a person who was a citizen “at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” is eligible to serve as president. The pool of eligible candidates must be seriously depleated by now. Roll on, strict constructionists.

    • Red Phillips says:

      “So who cares if Obama was born in Kenya? His mother is a citizen – ’nuff said.”

      Quaker, that is not true. I believe it would be true today but according to the naturalization laws that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, Obama’s mother was not old enough to automatically confer citizenship on him if he was born outside the US. This is a matter of law and is very much out there as a part of this debate and has not been challenged, as far as I can tell, by the anti-birthers who have bothered to look into it. Just ask Ick. He got egg on his face for challenging me on this. I’ll provide you a mainstream link when I get time.

      “While we’re at it, if you read the Constituution and apply modern rules of punctuation, only a person who was a citizen “at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” is eligible to serve as president. The pool of eligible candidates must be seriously depleated by now. Roll on, strict constructionists.”

      Well a strict constructionist wouldn’t apply modern rules of punctuation now would they? They would apply the rules of punctuation at the time. But that said, you are wrong here also (o-2). The text of the Constitution no matter how punctuated presents no problem here.

      “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

      • Quaker says:

        Sorry, but that comma after “States” eliminates the construction of a clause reading “,or a Citizen of ther United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution,”. Thus, both clauses are modified by the provision relating to the time of adoption. That, of course, would be a recidulous reading of the Constitution, but no more rediculous than that given by far right nutters.

        As for the “natural born” part of my comment, you may call me a liar as much as you wish, but my kids born in the early 1970s were considered natural born citizens of the United Stsates and may serve as President. If you would like to make a campaign contribution, please let me know. :>)

        • Red Phillips says:

          Here is the thread where we discussed the issue before.

          http://www.peachpundit.com/2010/05/03/birtherism-needs-to-get-out-of-political-dialogue-in-georgia/

          The law in question apparently was on the books from ’52 until ’86, so your kids must be citizens based on the fact that you (as the American parent) met the age and length of citizenship requirements that Obama’s mother did not.

          Don’t come back here and call me bad names or impugn my motives or tell me I don’t know what I am talking about. There are a couple of links in the thread above. Check them out. If you dispute me on the law then provide me with some links that explain why I am wrong. Otherwise, I patiently await your apology and retraction. Thanks.

  7. Red Phillips says:

    Quaker, I see your point grammatically, but it is silly. The operative point is the use of “or” and not “and.” Yes saying that only people alive at the time of ratification could be President is a ridiculous reading. And no originalist that I have ever heard of has ever made that point. So what is your point? That originalism is somehow invalid because you have a nit pick that no one has ever raised? So all the stuff about enumerated powers, etc. in the Federalist Papers etc. is invalid because of your comma?

    Re. citizenship, I didn’t call you a liar. So there is no need to escalate the rhetoric in that fashion. I said you were wrong about the law. Since I assume you didn’t know you were wrong about the law then you weren’t lying. You were just mistaken. I am sure you know the citizenship status of your children born in the early 70’s. What I said was the law at the time of Obama’s birth which has since changed. When it changed I don’t recall.

    • polisavvy says:

      I seen you post this before and have resisted asking; however, I have to do it this time. What do you mean by that? Is it a joke or do you have something interesting on this issue? Just curious.

      • Romegaguy says:

        Last spring when Deal said he was interested in seeing Obama’s birth certificate there was a guy in GA that asked Deal to produce his birth certificate. Deal never has.

        If it is ok for Deal to demand birth certificates of others, shouldnt he be willing to provide his own if asked by a citizen? Maybe he has something to hide. Erick has a binder that says Deal was originally born a girl in Kenya but had surgery…

          • Romegaguy says:

            Are you saying that it is ok to have FOREIGNERS as the Executive of our state? You must be one of them illegal aliens, too

        • Loren says:

          “If it is ok for Deal to demand birth certificates of others, shouldnt he be willing to provide his own if asked by a citizen? Maybe he has something to hide.”

          Rumor has it that Nathan Deal is actually the son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=6054

          We can’t know for certain that he’s not the son of Communist traitors until he stops hiding his birth certificate.

  8. Red Phillips says:

    BTW, the link to the AJC story doesn’t work. I would have to see the story, but it is not necessarily true that Alito felt the issue was “frivolous” as the title suggests. He just “rejected Taitz’s second request to block the sanctions.” On what grounds he rejected it is not clear.

    Part of the problem with “proving it in court” is that it is not clear what the appropriate venue would be. Who is the rightful plaintiff? What is the rightful jurisdiction? I’m not comfortable with these military members refusing orders to make a point, which is what the case in question was about.

Comments are closed.