[holden]

Remain on the ballot?   Isn’t that “be placed on the ballot”?

The SOS is apparently a Republican, so to conjecture influence to overturn a judge’s recommendation bears the burden of proof, IMHO. To conjecture that his decision would be based on a “belief” unfairly suggests a corruption of the process. Is there more that you “believe” that accounts for all this?

HF

[holden]

I read elsewhere that there were at least five citizen complaints of this nature that were filed in Georgia, so if one goes the direction we’re seeing as baked into the quash, the SOS would need to be a very solid reason to overturn such judicial outcomes. Such behavior by the SOS would have more than a patina, veneer or Hint of corruption!

HF

[MMaschin]

I used the term "remain on ballot" vs "placed on ballot", because judge Makihi said "this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office" in his dismissal of Obama's MOD. But it's really just symantics, I think either way is accurate.

When the judge denied the MOD, I was so happy that it finally looked like a court was going to weigh in on whether or not Minor v Happersett established legal precedent on the definition of NBC. Since judge Malihi denied the MOD, I really think he will go al the way with this, and look at Minor - but I am a bit neurotic by nature.

If judge Malihi has full hearings, listens to all of the arguments, and determines that Minor is legal precedent on NBC - then I think you are completely correct, the SOS will most certainly follow the judges recommendation.

If on the other hand, judge Malihi decides he want's to punt on this. Then Obama's lawyers not presenting any evidence might allow him to do so. Judge Malihi simply declares that Obama has not proven to him that he is eligible for the office he is running for. The judge then declares he no longer needs to proceed with hearing the plaintiffs arguments (such as Minor), because they have already won.

As I've stated above, if the judge has full hearings, and makes a legal decision that Minor is legal precedent, then the SOS will follow suit and keep Obama off the ballot. IF on the other hand, the judge goes thru the 'punt' scenario, and basically defaults for the plaintiffs, AND he wants to avoid a big bru-ha-ha, then he might say something like, "I'm not going to deny a candidate from a ballot because of a default judgement - I'm going to do my job as SOS, and make a decision on my own.". He could then make a ruling that he's looked at all the evidence himself, and he's sure that Obama is eligible, and will be on the ballot.

Being a Republican in no way means that the SOS wants to rule against Obama. I don't see any politician Republican or not making such a decision - UNLESS they have some sort of backing, such as a ruling from a judge. A judge declaring Minor precedent is the only way Obama will be ruled ineligible, because then people can say their hands were tied, and they are forced by legal precedent.