Replies

Ah — I missed you there, James. Trials are trials and opinions are opinions. Do you disagree with etraveler’s take? Did the four justices, or did they not, offer opinions that would disagree with Obama’s alleged eligability?

I agree with you completely. Trials are indeed trials and opinions are most definitely opinions.
No, I do not disagree with etraveller’s take.
Four justices did indeed offer opinions that would disagree with Obama’s alleged eligiblity. However at the current US Supreme Court, four justices does not a decision make, it takes five, like the current five Justice conservative majority: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
What has surprised me is that the Supreme Court operates under the tradition of “the rule of four” when granting Writs of Certiorari (agreeing to hear a case before the full court). With five conservtives on the bench, I wonder why no Obama eligibility case has made it to a hearing before the full Court by being granted a Writ of Certiorari since it only takes four of the Justices to agree to hear a case.

I’m glad you are offering a counter-point.

“Four justices did indeed offer opinions that would disagree with Obama’s alleged eligiblity. However at the current US Supreme Court, four justices does not a decision make, it takes five, like the current five Justice conservative majority: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.”

OK, so we have five justices who disagree with a reasonable opinion, perhaps for reasonable reasons. We had five justices who ruled on Kelo for UN-reasonable reasons too.

So, are states being foolish to pass new laws that would have forced Obama’s hand?

60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2462967/posts

Would those other five justices consider those states to be silly?

The fact that those laws weren’t passed earlier isn’t the point. The point is that people who called us names and tried to make us out to be kooks are losing the debate. When a president forces states to pass such laws, that tells me that the finger should not be pointed at us, but rather at the “president”.