“Now why bring that up in the current environment.”
Because SERRANO first brought up (jokingly) the question of his own presidential eligibility. Do you seriously think SERRANO was trying to tweak Obama on this question? Serrano then continued the joke by saying he appreciated that Thomas was willing to contemplate a non-judge to be on the Court, since he (Serrano) also was not a judge. Thomas (jokingly) replied “and you don’t have to be born in the United States. So you don’t have to answer that question.”
He DIDN’T say anything about “you don’t have to show your birth certificate,” so this clearly was a reference back to the original question of whether someone born in Puerto Rico was considered to be born in the U.S. for purposes of determining presidential eligibility.
Look at Thomas’ demeanor just before he makes this joke. He’s serious and responding to Serrano’s thanking him for his service. But it is Serrano who lightens the tone with his interjection about non-judges being able to serve on SC. Surely if Thomas had “planned” a zinger (or even did so extemporaneously), he would have made a point to specifically allude to showing a birth certificate. He could have been even more pointed by saying “you don’t even have to show your long-form birth certificate” etc.
I reiterate: this is much ado about nothing and I think it makes birthers look like real truth-stretchers to argue otherwise. At the end of the day, I don’t think that helps the birther cause. Better to rest on much more solid legal arguments such as Vattel’s claims in Law of Nations etc. From a logical perspective, invoking Thomas is relying on an “argument from authority” which is a logical fallacy. The truth of the claim about how NBC should be defined lies in legal arguments/evidence, not on a toting up of who is for or against one position or another.
Why, the birth certificate is about evidence and proof, the "are Peurto Ricanos eligible" is about the meaning of "Natural Born", just as "born in the US of one citizen and one alien parent" would be.I reiterate: this is much ado about nothing
I tend to agree, but the statements are so veiled it's hard to tell who was digging a whom.