Posted on 03/21/2014 10:25:55 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
Today the Alabama Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman, and the decision goes against plaintiffs Hugh Chapman and Virgil Goode, who were trying to force the Alabama Secretary of State to verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2102 Alabama presidential ballot. Larry Klayman was the attorney for the Appellants.
The Court’s Majority issued no written opinion, only affirming the lower court decision dismissing the case.
Majority decision to affirm, no opinion (Stuart, Murdock, Shaw, Main, Wise) Concurring opinion (Bolin) Concurring opinion (Bryan) Dissenting Opinion (Moore) Dissenting Opinion (Parker) Chief Justice Roy Moore issued the major dissenting opinion, and Justice Bolin issued a concurring opinion specifically addressed to Moore’s dissent. Chief Justice Moore states that under Alabama Law, Secretary of State Chapman has an affirmative duty to verify candidate eligibility. Justice Bolin agrees that candidate eligibility is an important public interest, but that Alabama statutes do not place a duty on the Secretary of State to verify it. Further Justice Bolin points out that Secretary of State Chapman is a nonjudicial officer with no subpoena power or investigative authority. Justice Bolin concludes:
Under our current structure, however, the burden of investigating a presidential candidate’s qualifications is best left – unfortunately or not – to the candidate’s political party….
As I understand his position, Justice Bolin is saying that a state statute requiring verification of eligibility for candidates for president is a desirable thing, given his belief that the federal courts are prohibited from adjudicating eligibility because of the Political Question Doctrine.
Justice Bryan also issued a concurring opinion, briefly stating his belief that legislation could be passed to allow verification of candidate eligibility.
Chief Justice Moore’s dissenting opinion goes to the details of the Alabama statutes involved and at a brief reading has no particular high points. It is an analysis on the merits.
Chief Justice Parker also dissents from the majority opinion, supporting the analysis of Chief Justice Moore, but disagreeing on the Secretary of State’s affirmative duty to investigate candidate eligibility.
A text search of all of the opinions affirms my opinion that the Affidavit of Mike Zullo is irrelevant, being cited not onc
A one-armed man shuffles cards slowly.
OBot synaptic functions are defective.
Says the guy who was 99.99% certain there’d be a press conference by now.
It’ll come DU’er.
You’re not holding your breath, are you?
Two weeks to go.
Hey little twit communist you didn’t take the bet.
That’s all right. I never thought you’d pay when you lost. Any ETA for those earth shattering revelations that no one will be able to deny? Word is Sheriff Joe has lost interest because he’s not running again in ‘16 and doesn’t need the donations this dog and pony show milked from the marks.
No Obot it’s you who wouldn’t send a dime.
So you still stand by the bet?
You’re still a village OBot as you did not take the bet.
But you admit I would have won, right? That you were wrong?
"Thursday, October 2, 2014
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Continues 2016 Reelection Fundraising At Prodigious Clip, Even Through (Others') 2014 Campaign; Passes $5Million Mark "
http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2014/10/sheriff-joe-arpaio-continues-2016.html
Arpaio looks very interested in running.
Admit I'm wrong OBot? No, I'm not. And trying to guess when a law enforcement agency may conclude a Criminal Investigation, can be hit and miss.
Hey, it’s springtime again! Maybe Zullo meant by the end of Spring 2015, not 2014.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.