Replies

I see no reason for a conservative state Supreme Court composed of ELECTED judges in a state that Mitt Romney carried by 21 points to rule on anything other than the law.

Why would a court rule on a case about abortion when the plaintiff is no longer pregnant? Answer - because the situation is repeatable, and the court recognizes that the legal system is not always swift enough to deal every situation, therefore it rules on the facts of the case, to create precedent for future cases of the same nature.

This is what happened in Roe v. Wade, the state said that issue was moot, because the plaintiff was no longer pregnant. The court ruled that since pregnancy was limited in time, and that that time might not allow for a case to always proceed, mootness is waived, and the case is to be heard, not to provide relief in this case, but to establish precedent for future cases of the same nature.

The case before the AL court is similar in nature, the time before an election is limited in the same way a pregnancy is limited, therefore the court could (and appears to be be doing so) decide the facts of the case before it, even though no relief is possible.

Below I'm am reposting my summation of what I believe is likely going on with the AL supreme court case.

Will the Alabama Supreme court ruling result in an action directly towards Obama - no. Why? Because the election is over. But the case is not moot. In Roe v. Wade, Roe was no longer pregnant, and that case was not moot. Like Roe, the court will rule to establish precedent, and to give future guidance. In order to do so, the court must look at the facts of THIS case, the case involving Obama.

Their ruling very well could be that after looking at the evidence presented, it is sufficient to show proof that no, Obama was not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President. And in doing so, bring forth all of the evidence presented that led to it's decision. It could also state that while the court is not in a position to offer relief in this case (just as in Roe, the court could not offer her an abortion), it's decision was that yes, the SOS is required in all future Presidential elections to verify the NBC status of every candidate.

The court would most likely also give guidance as to what the term-of-art "natural born Citizen" legally meant. It could cite legal precedent of Minor v. Happersett, Wong v. Ark, and ex parte Lockwood, that NBC was the legal state of Citizenship established when no Positive law required for Citizenship.

So, while the court could offer no relief in the current case, it could use this case to 1) rule that Obama was not eligible to run for the office of President, 2) show the evidence as to why he was not eligible, 3) rule that in future election the SOS is required to verify that all Presidential candidates are "natural born Citizens", and 4) provide specific guidelines as to what constitutes a "natural born Citizen".

In my opinion, the "March press conference", that has been talked about for so long, will be after this Alabama court ruling. And will be provided to present the evidence, cited in the AL case, to the media. And to answer the media's questions.

If the above plays out as I've stated above, there is no chance that Congress, and SCOTUS will be able to avoid this issue any longer.

SCOTUS justices aren’t elected and some of the Justices who ruled on Roe v Wade were among the most liberal Democrat Justices of the last century. In my humble opinion your attempt at an analogy with McInnish v. Chapman fails on those two key differences alone. Elected judges have to care about the will of the voters while lifetime appointed judges do not.

The issue before the Alabama Supreme Court is a narrow one: does Alabama election law require the Secretary of State to check and approve the qualifications of a presidential candidate and remove an ineligible candidate from the Alabama ballot.