Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

That would be funny. If nothing else it will demonstrate BO's contempt for the law , regardless of your view on the issue.

 

You may be right... but

I have no idea what Obama is doing.
If he does not submit any evidence now,
Georgia could legitimately keep him off the ballot.
But worse, plaintiffs in other states requesting courts to review evidence will likely see far fewer hurdles.

Regardless of the morality of not complying with election law -- this is a serious game of brinksmanship... and I am not sure to what end.

If I had evidence I were born in HI... I would produce it. If Obama did produce evidence of his birth in HI most if not all lower court would shy away from the NBC issue. By the time the appeals process was exhusted... he would likely be Pres or defeated..
If he is Pres... I doubt the U.S. Supreme Ct would create a constitutional crisis of foundational proportions.

Can you say President Clinton?

 

The suit was filed as an attempt to keep the President off the GA primary ballot. It's nothing to do with him having to appear.

 

Lol!
There are no grounds to make a case. Frivolous litigation can attract hefty fines.

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html


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 appearing 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.

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.

Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge.

 

So now the democrats are saying that they decide who is on the ballot.. not courts, not the state and not the constitution.

I wonder why?

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...t-to-remove-barack-obama-from-georgia-ballot/

Here’s the statement just released by Mike Berlon, chairman of the state Democratic party:

“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.

“This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.

“In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.

“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.

“In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases. Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”

 

Wow, those statements are not only wrong but incredibly naive.

 

It is very common for court to consider the evidence and arguments before issuing a ruling...

there will be a ruling.

Probably tomorrow morning... but maybe the court will post a ruling tomorrow afternoon -- if the judge wants to avoid the press and get out of town during lunch.

 

Interesting, I wonder why they reserved a seat for him then.

 

I read an outstanding essay last night on the problem of "proceduralism" in law enforcement and crime control. Gotta post it...