“Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
“Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Coast Guard, challenges his conviction by a court-martial. His conviction was affirmed first by the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, and then by the United States Court of Military Appeals.[1] The latter court agreed with petitioner that the two civilian judges who served on the Court of Military Review had not been appointed in accordance with the dictates of the Appointments Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, but nonetheless held that the actions of those judges were valid de facto. We hold that the judges’ actions were not valid de facto.”
The issue before SCOTUS concerned congress unconstitutionally appointing Coast Guard appeals court judges that should have been appointed by the POTUS.
This case has NOTHING to due with whether sitting federal judges were lawfully appointed or can make lawful rulings.
SCOTUS in this case repeatedly affirms the de facto officer doctrine as applied to judges and which currently would apply to ALL of Barry’s appointments UNLESS AFTER a finding of criminal usurpation SCOTUS itself decided to declare Barry as never having been POTUS (highly unlikely).
So SvenMagnussen’s scenario of a plaintiff challenging the legitimacy of the federal judge assigned to a case examining Barry’s eligibility documents would improperly “assume facts not in evidence” i.e. that a judge is not legitimately appointed.
” ... two civilian judges who served on the Court of Military Review had not been appointed in accordance with the dictates of the Appointments Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, but nonetheless held that the actions of those judges were valid de facto. We hold that the judges’ actions were not valid de facto.”
Judges appointed by Obama must comply with the Appointments Clause, U.S. Constitution, Article II, Subsection 2, clause 2 or their appointment is invalid if the defendant or respondent challenges the appointment of a Judge by the usurper before trial.