Thread: High court unlikely to hear suits about Obama's citizenship

High court unlikely to hear suits about Obama's citizenship
By David G. Savage | Los Angeles Times
December 6, 2008
WASHINGTON - Undaunted by election results on Nov. 4, several persistent plaintiffs have pursued lawsuits asserting that president-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of president because he is not a "natural born citizen." Their claims were rejected in lower courts, but they have filed motions and appeals at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q: What do these suits say?

A: One filed by Philip Berg, a lawyer in Lafayette Hill, Pa., asserts that Obama was born in Kenya, even though he has a birth certificate from Hawaii showing he was born there on August 4, 1961. A second, by Leo C. Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., asserts that neither Sens. John McCain nor Obama were natural born citizens.

"Even if it were proved [Obama] was born in Hawaii," he was not a "natural born citizen," Donofrio says, because Obama's father was born in Kenya. But under U.S. law, persons born in the United States are natural born citizens.

Berg sued Obama, while Donofrio sued New Jersey's secretary of state. Initially, the suits sought a court order to remove Obama's name from the ballot. Since early November, they have lodged appeals and motions saying courts should intervene to block Obama from becoming president.

Q: How have these suits fared?

A: They have lost at every stage. Berg's suit was rejected by a federal judge in Philadelphia who ruled that Berg had no standing to sue. To bring a lawsuit, someone must show he has suffered a personal injury of some sort. A general complaint will not do.

Having lost before U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Oct. 24, Berg skipped the U.S. appeals court and filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on Oct. 30. Donofrio's suit was rejected by state judges in New Jersey. On Nov. 6, he filed an "application for emergency stay" at the Supreme Court, first with Justice David Souter and then Justice Clarence Thomas.

Q: What will the Supreme Court do with these suits?

A: These suits have very little chance of gaining a hearing now. The Supreme Court decides legal issues. It does not resolve factual disputes. In the suits over Obama's birth, the plaintiffs have not persuaded any judge that the president-elect was, in fact, not born in Hawaii. The Supreme Court would have no basis for reconsidering that basic fact.

The justices also review rulings made by lower courts, usually when there is a disagreement about the law. In these cases, lower courts dismissed the suits without handing down major rulings.

In Donofrio's case, he did not file a full appeal but instead an "emergency stay" motion with two justices. When persistent litigants file motions with more than one justice, the court's normal practice is to refer the matter to the full court. In Donofrio's bid for an emergency stay, the court's computer said it was "Distributed for Conference of December 5." This routine referral was treated on some blogs as though the justices had agreed to debate or deliberate on the matter.

If the justices think an "emergency stay" raises an important point, they ask the other side to respond. They did not bother to ask for a response to Donofrio's motion.

The court receives about 150 appeals per week, and all but a small fraction are rejected without discussion among the justices. Donofrio's is likely to be denied without comment on Monday morning. Berg's is likely to meet the same fate.

The Los Angeles Times is a Tribune Co. newspaper.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nation ... 6248.story

Who was answering the questions which were asked.....the reporter who wrote the story?

Unless I missed something in there, I don't see anything indicating that a qualified legal professional was providing the answers.