The newest thing, I see, is that the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick somehow was implored to decide as he did in the Berg v. Obama suit, that the memorandum and order was somehow thrust upon him by a former law clerk who now works closely with Michelle Obama. Fax transmissions shown on the readily-available document have been called into question, as though the judge was sent the decision he was supposed to render.
People, come on.
The standing doctrine is crystal clear. The law, in this case, was on the side of Barack Obama and the DNC when it came down to the procedural details. To prevail, Berg needed Judge Surrick to play the role of judicial activist and expand the law as it stands today. I’ve noted before that the standing doctrine had changed over time, but just because the judge [unfortunately] declined to change it again, we cannot simply assume that he was somehow coerced to uphold the law.
Don’t get me wrong — I was hoping that Surrick would indeed change the standing doctrine. I think that, in this case, the law as it stands could not be more wrong. I find it sad, and somewhat contrary to what I feel our founders would have liked, that individuals cannot ask that a presidential candidate who has failed to be forthcoming in so many different ways to come clean about his questionable past. Still, as disappointing as Surrick’s decision was, it was far from unexpected.
It would not take a conspiracy to force a judge to come down on the right side of the law as it currently stands. He did what was expected of him. I understand the will to look for answers, but if there is an answer that we should all be looing for, it should be to the question of standing and, more specifically, injury. Hopefully, as Berg proceeds through the court system, he will frame his questions in a way which will nudge the courts into providing a true, specific, definitive test for injury-in-fact, the first of three elements in the standing doctrine. Right now, while a judge may apply the plaintiff’s allegations to a sliding scale of remoteness and speculation in order to decide whether a plaintiff has been injured in a specific and particularized manner, it would be nice to see a definitive test for the injury requirement come of all of this.
In the meantime, we are nine short days away from the most important election of this generation, a contest between two men with stark differences in policies, ideology and aspirations. We may not be able to affect the thinking of a political candidate or a district court judge — so let’s take responsibility for our own actions and do the right thing in the voting booth.
UPDATE — Sun., Oct. 26 @ 10:15pm
Obama’s Birth Certificate Sealed by Hawaii Governor
(FROM: WorldNetDaily) Now, contrary to what some of you may believe, I am not a tin-foil hat kind of guy. Still, I find this to be strange, especially considering that the Illinois senator was just there a few days ago. At any rate, why not just produce the valid, vault copy and not only put an end to all of this, but come out looking better for having done so? If anything, Obama could turn it over and say something along the lines of “do you see how far people will go?” and come out smelling sweetly on the whole thing, but he doesn’t. Odd.