[Pearls Before Swine]

To avoid riots, maybe the Supremes will decide that the affadavit of a government official is enough evidence, making the actual certificate unnecessary.

Ugh.

[EyeGuy]

“To avoid riots, maybe the Supremes will decide that the affadavit of a government official is enough evidence, making the actual certificate unnecessary.”

####

I think this is unfortunately, the most realistic prediction.

This will be buried in legalistic sleight of hand and obfuscation. In other words: lies in the face of a very CLEAR Constitutional requirement.

[padre35]

Hmm...I don’t know, SCOTUS judges are as curious as anyone else, I don’t know of a request of clarification that could be made by the SCOTUS to the HDR...

If one exists, it would not surprise me to see it issued, after all the controversy at law revolves around a public document that should have been released to anyone who has standing to ask, this is really just a boring public records case at it’s core.

[Revel]

And we don’t even have that. The words from the official in Hawaii are parsed in such a way in that they make no such claim.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

It’s too bad, because Jake Tapper was pretty objective during the campaign. I guess this guy’s soon-to-be obsolete job is far more important than informing the American people.

[fr_freak]

To avoid riots, maybe the Supremes will decide that the affadavit of a government official is enough evidence, making the actual certificate unnecessary.

And this is where we on the right are failing: the Supreme Court, as well as all the other branches of government, should be equally if not more afraid of OUR reaction if they don't address this issue to our satisfaction. Otherwise, the leftists thugs rule this country once and for all, and any law in the land can be subverted if the leftists don't like it. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Where the law is merely what the leftist mobs say it is?