Usually SCOTUS tries to avoid controversial decisions that will lead to political firestorms.
But how could anyone criticize the very reasonable request that Obama come up with proof of his birth and citizenship? As many Freepers have noted, you can’t even get a driver’s license or a low-level security clearance without showing a birth certificate.
Perhaps Obama will fall back on Plan B, and explain that he wasn’t really born in Hawaii, but descended straight from heaven.
“Usually SCOTUS tries to avoid controversial decisions that will lead to political firestorms.”
They will not review “political questions” but one of their affirmative functions is to interpret federal statutes:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
This may not be a political question but a question they are willing to review—whether or not the president-elect is a “natural born citizen”.
“political firstorm” If they find that he is not, yeah—the stuff’s really going to hit the fan.
Yeah, like Roe v Wade.
In which case he fails the natural born citizen requirement.
I think you meant, “ascended straight from hell” didn’t you?
“...explain that he wasn’t really born in Hawaii, but descended straight from heaven.”
The Immaculate Deception
Insofar as they do, sometimes they're faced with a firestorm whichever way they go. If the "natural born" question isn't resolved by January 20, it will continue to accumulate speed & hysteria, and a growing number of citizens will have reason to question the administration's legitimacy - with easily dire consequences. Firestorm now, or firestorm later - some choice.
“Perhaps Obama will fall back on Plan B, and explain that he wasn’t really born in Hawaii, but descended straight from heaven.”
Perish the thought.