The harebrained lawsuit demanding disclosure whether President elect Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen or not was laughed out of New Jersey courts in October. A few weeks later Supreme Court Justice David Souter gave it just as short shrift. He denied a stay to get Obama removed from the ballot in that state. But that didn't end the matter. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas saw to that.
He took the almost never heard of step of reopening the issue by agreeing to put the matter to a conference vote. Thomas's ridiculous lone wolf effort to arm twist the justices to examine the birth certificate issue made no sense to most legal experts. Obama was born in Hawaii. And he has produced more than enough evidence to back that up.
But Thomas's legal meddle on the Obama birth certificate non-issue fits perfectly in with his jaundiced interpretation of law and its practice and his private vow to get revenge on his liberal tormentors. Obama is the latest would be victim. He almost certainly stirred Thomas's personal ire back in August. Obama was asked at a joint church gathering with Republican rival John McCain at the mega Saddleback church in Lake Forest, California which justice he wouldn't have nominated to the Supreme Court. He didn't hesitate. He named Thomas. And he told why.
"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."
Even if Obama hadn't zinged Thomas publicly he still would have been in his sights. He is the polar opposite of Thomas. He's a moderate Democrat, a former civil rights attorney, and community organizer. He backs expanded government, affirmative action, abortion rights, a severely restricted use of the death penalty, and to the absolute horror of Thomas and hard line conservatives, he backs a broader interpretation of legal precepts. Obama almost certainly would have joined the swollen chorus of civil rights and civil liberties groups that pounded Thomas during his High Court confirmation fight in 1991 for his anti-affirmative action, anti-abortion, and anti-prisoner rights views. The Senate confirmed him by the narrowest vote of any high court judge in recent confirmation history. The rebuke stung deeply, and Thomas didn't forget or forgive.
In an American Enterprise Institute lecture in 2001, he wrapped himself in the martyr's garment and said that he expected to be treated badly for challenging liberal opinion.When asked how long he'd stay on the court, he reportedly said that he'd stay there for the next 43 years of his life. He was 43 at the time. In a more revealing aside, he supposedly quipped to friends that it would take him that long to get even. Whether that was hyperbole or an apocryphal tale, it hasn't taken him 43 years to wreak his revenge.He has been a one man wrecking crew to expunge race from law and public policy decisions.
But this is not simply one man's personal bitterness over his alleged mistreatment by liberals and civil rights leaders. Nor is it a case of Thomas digging his heels in to push his retrograde view on legal matters. He wants more judges to think and act like him on the bench. Obama has made it clear not only that he would not appoint another Thomas to the High Court but that the type of judges he'd appoint will be the diametric opposite of him. There's a good chance that he will have that chance, maybe two possibly three chances.
The court's liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer, and the moderate to conservative Anthony Kennedy are in their seventies. Obama will likely pick likeminded judicially philosophical judges to replace one or more of them. This will decisively thwart Thomas and the conservative's on the court's counter revolution. A McCain win would have insured that there would be even more justices who would likely see eye to eye with Thomas on abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, prisoner rights, and Bush's war on terrorism orders.
That didn't happen. But federal appeals courts in future years will still deal with the sensitive issues of abortion rights, minimum mandatory sentencing, DNA testing in capital cases, the search and seizure laws, and racial profiling. Those cases will ultimately wind there way up to the Supreme Court. The High Court's rulings and dissents in these cases can permanently reshape America's legal landscape, for good or bad.Thomas' votes on these cases are predictable.
Obama's White house win insures that there won't be other justices whose votes are just as predictable and in agreement with his. Thomas butt in, in the Obama birth certificate non-issue is simply a thumb nose at Obama. There is method to madness.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009)
http://earlofarihutchinson.blogspot.com/
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally acclaimed author and political analyst. He has authored ten books; his articles are published in newspapers and magazines nationally in the United States. Three of his books have been published in other languages. He is also a social and political analyst and he appears on such TV programs as CNN, MSBC, NPR, The O'Reilly Show, American Urban Radio Network, and local Los Angeles television and radio stations as well. He is an associate editor at New America Media and a regular contributor to Black News.com, Alternet.com, BlackAmericaWeb.Com and the Huffington Post. He does a weekly commentary on KJLH Radio in Los Angeles.
You know, I've always thought it was ridiculous that Supreme Court judges are elected for life-or until they decide to retire. There really should be some action in place to limit their terms. Even ten years would be reasonable, but life...? It just seem too long.
by
Ginger Hastings Chapman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments)
on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 6:31:36 AM
OK Thomas is dumb and biased and doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. We all agree. But is this about Thomas? Could this controversy go on for so long if there is not some problem with Obama's birth certificate? Why should this question keep emerging? It seems there would be a simple way to put it to bed once and for all. Check with the hospital where he was born. If the hospital can't come up with it for a legitimate reason, what gives? Republicans have the same right to truth as we demand of them. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't know what the truth is in this case but it seems to me it would be easy enough to find out. What's the big deal? Is there something to hide?
by
Nick van Nes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 285 comments)
on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 7:39:37 AM
the most recent puppet ... if it weren't him, it'd be somebody else, eh?, to follow the oligarch's plans. I really don't care much about the citizenship issue .. but... that said, as far as I can tell, the main issue is that while a certificate of live birth has been disclosed, it does not document Obama being born in the US. A birth certificate which would do that, has -not- been produced. I guess that's the point .... I'll go back an read a bit more on it.
But the real fuel that flames this, I guess, is that Obama refuses to produce a birth certificate. Such a easy thing to do (one would presume) to stop all the hoopla ... If he has in fact refused to produce it, I have to wonder. Any logical person who studies human nature would wonder. There are not all that many reasonable explanations.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 976 comments)
on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM
Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu
Also care to explain why there was a announcement of Barack Obama's birth in 1961 in the Hononolulu paper?? Oh wait I forgot Obama can travel back in time and he altered the paper in 1961 so that when he ran for President in 2008 he would have the perfect cover story.
If you know how to use NEXUS you can find the referenced article.
Serafin, Peter (21 March 2004). "Punahou grad stirs up Illinois politics" (Article), Special to the Star-Bulletin, Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Retrieved on November 30 2008.
by
E. Nelson (29 articles, 5 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 335 comments)
on Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM
I don't know what your point is with this? The hospital I was born in is now a parking lot. Does that mean I was really not born because the hospital no longer exists? I guess I should be looking out for the ICE patrol because I could now be deported at any time.
by
E. Nelson (29 articles, 5 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 335 comments)
on Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 2:29:24 PM
You have your reasoning backwards....if the hospital you were born is was a parking lot at the time...and is NOW a hospital, yes you would have a strange situaltion to deal with.
Obama was born in 1961. The web site says that this hospital was on line in the 80s...so...well, you figure that one out.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 959 comments)
on Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 4:02:31 PM
"Also care to explain why there was a announcement of Barack Obama's birth in 1961 in the Hononolulu paper??"
This is not as clear cut as you are attempting to portray it my friend. It is more than obvious that Obama was born...unless we have an android on our hands here...Lol
Obviously if the mother and child went to Hawaii shortly after a birth in Kenya, and announcement of this sort could have been made as well.
However--I am not arguing that Obama was not born in Hawaii...I just want it to be proven once and for all. Again, a COLB is not a Birth Certificate.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 959 comments)
on Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM
The question keeps coming up because neo-cons won't give up on it. But, then, they have been living in their own little world since the Podheritz, a huge house of cards designed to allow Isreal a free hand while giving the military industrial establishment and the oil industry billions in profits.
For years, private money has built think tanks employing thousands of proselytizers in the production of millions of words supporting the neocon point of view.
Finally, and the Obama election signals this, a majority of Americans have come to see through the lies. Were we in time? Can we survive and recover from the results of neocon "rule"?
We may be in for a greater disaster than any of us know, especially given the leadership in Congress.
Whatever happens, idiots like Thomas will continue to beat their illogical, angry and hateful drum. Our chance lies in prosecuting all the crimes committed in the last eight years, and educating Republican supporters as to the folly of trusting their erstwhile leadership.
I'll be surprized if we come clean, there are too many people making money off of riding American civilization down.
by
GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments)
on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 2:07:33 PM
the truth is the truth. However when you take a hard look at the people who are presenting their "facts" about Obama not being a citizen, you then begin to realize that these people are for the most part either crackpots or scam artists. An example is Bob Shultz. the guy in charge of the so called We the People Foundation" who claims to be a constitutional defender. Never heard of them? That's because who they are and who they say they are are in reality two entirely different animals. The truth is, " We the People Foundation," is a scam and it's head, Bob Shultz, is a lying income tax evading idiot and a scam artist who will probably more than likely be facing an IRS indictment for income tax evasion sometime soon!
He is but one example. Another canard is worldnetdaily. So by all means let's search for the truth about Obama, but let's also search the truth about the groups behind this non-citizen nonsense too. Some are bloggers like "Ron Polarik" who claims to have a PHD yet refuses to present his real identity. He's also involved with 4winds10 who amount to nothing more than a bunch of Jew bashers. Every conspiracy kook under the sun is getting involved in this. Why it wouldn't surprise me if Lyndon LaRouche, the master of making everything out of nothing weren't somehow behind it all. What does all of this spell out? I would say exactly what the author of this article is saying. The Obama non citizen claim is a non-issue and Judge Thomas a revenge seeking neocon twit.
by
Michael Shaw (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, December 6, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM
What's the big deal? Just show us the Certificate of Live Birth and all the lawyers can go back to suing McDonald's because their coffee is too hot or Wal-Mart for asking a guy go and open the doors of the store on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Why any Supreme Court justice works past 65 is beyond me. I retired at 55 and never looked back. Every day you have on this planet is precious and spending it working if you do not have to is not good IMHO.
The thing that bothers me is about judges, Supreme Court and otherwise, is that we have 3 branches of government in this country. Each has a unique purpose and when one usurps the duties of the other it can lead to chaos. Judges in the last 30 years have become a 2nd legislative branch of government and we now have judges making laws instead on judging whether actions measure up to a law's legislative intent or whether a law is consitutional.
I would rather have 12 strict constitutionalists sitting on the bench in the Supreme Court than 12 people who decided cases based on polls, how they felt that day, or whatever seemed 'fair' at the moment. Judges should be what holds the legislatures and administrations in check. That has changed in this country and now we have no idea how cases will be decided. It will get worse because Obama's litmus test is not whether a judge can decide cases based on law but whether a judge can show empathy, whatever that means.
The case of Obama's birth certificate should be ruled on. It is a matter of constitutionality that only the Supreme Court can decide. If they do not they are caving into the geopolitical realities in this country. In other words if you want to influence legal decisions or in this case non-decisions threaten implicitly or directly mass rioting. The SC will, in my opinion, dodge the issue and maybe address it later somehow.
by
Mad Jayhawk (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 466 comments)
on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM
A much brighter mind than I (unfortunately, I don't have the URL -- google it yourself, perhaps it was Paul Lehto) explained this MUCH more importantly.
The SCOTUS may not rule against OBAMA, but by MERELY SAYING THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO RULE they are taking control over a decision regarding an election voted on by the people that has been concluded.
THe SCOTUS, if they rule that "Obama is a U.S. Citizen and the election stands" are implying that they COULD have ruled "Obama is NOT a U.S. Citizen and the election does NOT stand."
That would be unconstitutional, but that has not stopped the SCOTUS from interefering in elections in the past (2000?) and would not stop them in the future.
Thomas is hoping he can get 4 of his compatriots to stake out some legal ground where SCOTUS can become the final arbitrator of U.S. Federal Elections, in direct contraditiction of their role as outlined in the Constitution.
You have to understand how Mayburry v. Madison worked to understand the brilliance of this strategy. They would "give Obama what he wants" while taking a giant swath of legal territory into their own realm. This is not Thomas' work (he's not that smart) but must surely Roberts, Alito or Scalia.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 737 comments)
on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 12:46:03 PM
The case in which the Supreme Court presumed its power to rule on the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts is Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Thomas' assumption of jurisdiction in the citizenship case is nothing other than pure vengeance, and the remainder of the Court will refuse to hear the case. The case is not based upon the argument Obama is not a U.S. citizen, but on the argument he holds dual citizenship because of his father's foreign citizenship.
As to his birth certificate, factcheck.org has authenticated it. It has also been authenticated by experts in document analysis. It cannot be released from public records for the very reason that it is a public record in Hawaii. However, anyone that wishes to examine it can walk into the custodian of records and view the birth certificate upon request. This is why the issue of Obama's birth in another country is not at issue in the suit before the Supreme Court.
Finally, giving life tenure to Supreme Court justices was one of the mo
