It pains me to say this, but as liberal anti-birthers go, you are not one of the honest ones. This post illustrates that.
Let me explain. Some time ago, Virginia Sunahara’s brother tried to obtain a copy of her birth certificate. According to the law, he had every right to do so. Prior to HI’s decision on the matter, I visited an anti-birther site. [Back then I occasionally did that. These days, never.]
Anyway, one of the posters, a total Obot anti-birther, said this case would either validate or invalidate birther claims that HI is corrupt and predisposed to protect Obama and thwart birthers. The poster said if the state allowed the brother to obtain a copy of his sister’s BC, birthers would have egg on their faces. If he were denied, it would prove our claims in a troubling and indisputable way.
That was maybe the only honest anti-birther in the world. The rest of you just shill for Obama. You don’t do so objectively or intelligently, but just by rote. You have your talking points which you repeat forever. You never admit what that lone anti-birther admitted—the deck is stacked for Obama and against birthers. You just prattle along like a good shill, repeating your mindless drivel. What a sordid way to spend your time.
There can be a considerable difference between the way courts might deal with a request from the brother of an infant who died 53 years ago and the way they would deal with a request for a court order from the Chair of a congressional investigative committee fulfilling its constitutional duty to insure that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution has not been violated by an ineligible candidate or officeholder.
Duncan Sunahara received a short form Certification of Live Birth for Virginia and the appellate court ruled that the Hawaii Department of Health
had that discretion under the state law.
The legal standard is “direct and tangible interest.”