I have read hundreds of federal court opinions and have never seen the word "embarrass" used in this manner. In the judge's opinion, the noun "embarrassment" was used to refer not to Congress, not to any Court, but to Obama himself. The potential embarrassment was personal, not institutional.
Specifically, it means, in this case, a re-iteration that the judicial branch has no right or authority to delve into another entities business.
I can give you hundereds of Supreme Court (and lower federal court) cases where the actions of private corporations or government agencies or officials were delved into, so this statement is nonsense in general.
But I'll concede that military courts are different in many ways, notably harsher in general against criminal defendants.
...specifically political questions on the Presidents [sic] legitimacy which are reserved exclusively to Congress.
Questions on the President's ligitimacy, i.e., the determination as who whether he qualifies for the office, are constitutional questions implicating the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of Article II. They are not "political" questions in the legal sense of the term.
Article III, Section 2 states in pertinent part that "[t]he judicial Power [of the federal courts] shall extend to all cases ... arising under this Constitution..." Plus, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution nor in federal law supporting your contention that "political questions on the Presidents legitimacy ... are reserved exclusively to Congress." That's because the Founding Fathers and later Congresses never contemplated a situation such as this one, where a man might somehow attain the presidency without the integrity to document, if challenged, that he was a Natural Born Citizen.
Have you read the judge’s opinion? Neither have I.
A guy who was there, asked about the ‘embarrass’ comment, wrote: “The judge did not say it would embarrass the President. What she did say was that it is not the duty of one of the branches of Government to use their power to embarrass the other branches of government. It’s not a quote, I’m just paraphrasing.”
I’ll be curious to see the wording used in the Judge’s opinion, if it gets published.
As for Obama not being looked at for eligibility, please remember that:
A) if Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii, he committed fraud. If he was not born inside the US, then he needs to be removed immediately. And, of course, every opponent he faced knew this. Yet during the 2 years he ran, no one came up with any evidence nor have they to this date.
B) if he was born in the USA, he IS a natural born citizen. His opponents agree, all 50 states agree, Congress agrees, the courts agree - there can be no rational doubt on this. Every member of Congress had a chance to object to his delegates’ votes, and not one did. The Supreme Court had the chance to rule contrary, and they declined the case. The voters knew & accepted him. Before he ran, that was accepted law.
And it is not the role of a military court to determine the eligibility of someone for the Presidency. That is the role of the People, and I don’t have to like what the People decided.
Hundreds? Really? That many. I'm surprised you don't recognize the quotation, because it's certainly well-known.
First, let's be precise about what Lind said. She said...
“The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”
Now, to anyone who has been educated in law (preferably not Orly Taitz law school, however), and especially the relevant case law surrounding nonjusticiability and the Political Question Doctrine, is going to say to themselves after reading that, "Boy, that's familiar".
It's familiar because she borrowed the statement from the landmark Political Question Doctrine case, Baker v. Carr.
More precisely, Lind, in authoring her opinion, quotes from several prior cases. One of the cases she cites is United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 108-09 (C.A.A.F. 2001). In that case, CAAF cites - just like Lind does in her own opinion - another case, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), and says....
"The Supreme Court has long recognized the principle of “nonjusticiability”: meaning that courts of law should decline to exercise their authority to decide matters where judicial intervention is deemed inappropriate. Based upon the Constitutional principle of separation of powers in the three branches of Government, judicial review of “a political question” is precluded where the Court finds one or more of the following:a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 218 (1962); see also Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968).
emphasis added
Lind cited an opinion, that cited an opinion that used the word "embarrassment", and then Lind borrowed that relevant section almost verbatim for her own opinion. How about that? But, from this, people think that Lind was attempting to save Barack Obama from embarrassment. Oy vey.
Keep reading those opinions, though. You'll get it.