This is actually HORRIBLE news!
Under the Georgia statute, it is the candidates responsability to show that they are eligible. And it’s the judges job to determine if the candidate has done so. So, since the judge is entering a default judgement, all he needs to say in his ruling is - “the candidate did not appear to show he is eligible for the office he is running for, therefore it is the courts opinion that he not be placed on the ballot”.
This means that the evidence presented at the hearing was for show only! The judge is not going to rule on Minor v Happersett being precedent on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’.
The SOS may, or may not put Obama on the ballot, but there will be nothing coming from this hearing that will be usefull in removing Obama from any other state ballot.
I’m not so sure. In my experience, there are many scenarios when a party might be entitled to a default judgment, but the court may either require or permit the prevailing party to conduct a “proof hearing” to establish the precise basis for what should be included in the judgment. This is mostly done in monetary cases, where the defendant’s default is not sufficient alone to establish how much the defendant actually owes. But there are other scenarios where a proof hearing can take place in order to establish the exact nature of the relief that are provided by the judgment.