Judge Malihi came back with his decision that he is recommending to GA’s SoS that Obama is eligible to be on the State’s ballot.
Attorney Irion’s response.
A few things to note:
- Judge Malihi decided to use dicta from a previous case in Indiana (Ankeny) as the main deciding factor of presidential natural born citizenship, even though a footnote in Judge Malihi’s decision disclaims that the Ankeny ruling didn’t actually define natural born citizenship
- Dr. Taitz, rather ironically, did not actually vet the “experts” to whom she turned with respect to allegedly debunking Obama’s posted birth certificates, Social Security number, etc. Therefore, Judge Malihi rejected virtually all of that evidence en mass as being “unpersuasive”
- Mr. Irion, as was expected, will be appealing this recommendation to the Georgia Appellate Court
On one hand, I am absolutely happy that a Court — via previously-legislated State statute — has taken up the basic — though not exhaustive — merits of presidential eligibility. This has forced even the opposition to such questioning to continuously move the proverbial goalposts insofar as managing expectations has been concerned.
On the other hand, we still do not have a definitive determination of exactly who qualifies as a natural born citizen with respect to presidential eligibility. As I’ve pointed out previously, even the State Department admits to this, and Judge Malihi did not move the question any further towards definition, as he clearly admits in his own decision.
Time for me to go off the reservation:
What would have happened if many of the previous federal and State-based challenges would not have happened, where the Plaintiffs should have done a better job at researching issues such as standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and the like? While I fully admit to appreciating the copious amounts of energy spent on pushing forward in these cases, after having essentially failed at a handful of them, what evidence was there that n+1 cases were going to succeed?
For one thing, the Ankeny v. Daniels case would never have occurred. What, then, would Judge Malihi have used as a reference point in his own decision?
Would Mr. Jablonski have actually showed up, minus Obama (that would have been slightly more helpful)?
Removing all emotion from the issue, should any other nationwide, State-based ballot challenge go forward, would it not be true that said challenge would simply use Judge Malihi’s decision in the same way that Judge Malihi used the Ankeny dicta, thereby maintain the current inertia of the issue?
Anyone can get pissed off at me all they want regarding what I just said, but sometimes it pays to step back from the issue and regain some perspective. Maybe expending so much energy towards the same process and expecting different results every time doesn’t mean there’s an issue with the Judiciary; it could just mean that you’ve got a bad strategy, and beating your head against the same proverbial brick wall will only open up more wounds.
I’m just sayin’.
phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com