I wish I was on the computer that allows me to see video. Dang.
The combination of things posted leads me to believe that Thomas knows a person has to be born in the US to be eligible to be POTUS. They’ve never yet received a case that they could decide regarding a Puerto Rican.
When Thomas says they’re “evading” the issue he isn’t talking about evading giving Serrano a private, off-the-record assessment about the Puerto Rico issue, because from Serrano said in 2007, Thomas has already done that.
He can’t be talking about evading the Puerto Rico issue specifically because it’s never been part of a case. The only way they could legally “evade” the issue is if there was a case that had arisen and they were carefully side-stepping it.
In 2008 Serrano joked that SCOTUS had fewer cases because they wouldn’t take up his presidential question, but said that if they had to decide McCain’s case they could throw his situation in with it. He’s very aware that they could evade McCain’s case - which they ended up doing.
I think you’re right, that it does bug Serrano that Thomas has said he (Serrano) is probably ineligible but when the need for the definition of NBC to be clarified came up - both with McCain and with Obama - SCOTUS refused to hear the case, even though they would have had the time to do so. They didn’t reject hearing the cases because they had too many other serious issues to decide, nor did they reject them because they were not technically “cases” (e.g. didn’t meet the standing requirement). They were - as Thomas openly admitted - simply “evading” the issue of presidential eligibility.
It was not a joking mood when Serrano and Thomas had this exchange. The awkwardness seemed palpable to me when I watched it. The issues of race and experience had been central to the discussion up to that point, and then Thomas awkwardly brought up, of his own volition, the issue of birth place.
I’m glad to have a better grasp of the background so I can know the currents going on underneath, but the awkwardness of that exchange still sticks out in my mind - especially in contrast with the times when the issue really WAS a subject of good-natured banter.
Serrano seems like an interesting character. That 2010 hearing just seems so different than the other ones. The Obama presidency has really taken a toll on a lot of things, I think.
To expand on the March 2007 Appropriation's hearing, I could only see the "good-natured banter" coming from Justice Thomas that he was smiling like a Cheshire cat and maybe let out a chuckle when Serrano brought up the issue of presidential eligibility for Puerto Ricans. I saw or heard no bantering from Congressman Serrano who seemed to deadpan his remarks. You can speculate to why Thomas was smiling.