Judge Michael Malihi has ruled against the birther challenge to Barack Obama’s appearance on electoral ballots in the State of Georgia.
In fact, Orly Taitz and the birthers lost in a contest against an empty table. Neither President Obama or his lawyer actually showed up, and they still lost.
It doesn’t get much worse than that, folks. And that fact should serve as an indication of the complete hopelessness of the birther position.
Part of Judge Malihi’s rationale (particularly in regard to the testimony by Doug Vogt and others that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is a “forgery”) is that not one of the witnesses that Dr. Taitz presented was a qualified expert.
I must confess that I was a bit surprised when Doug Vogt was even allowed to appear and testify. I had done some reading about the qualifications for court-recognized experts, and had concluded that none of the folks who’ve weighed in heavily on the birth certificate — myself included — were likely to qualify. In fact, I said as much a week or two ago in an email to Paul Irey.
So… Doug Vogt was allowed to take the stand and testify, but his testimony didn’t really count for anything. Which is just as well, since none of his claims are valid anyway.
Vogt’s disqualification as an “expert” witness, though, isn’t exactly a cause of the birther loss in Georgia. It’s a symptom.
The cause is the simple fact that the facts aren’t with them.
If the facts were on the birthers’ side, then they would be able to attract a qualified expert witness.
That, ultimately, is why the birthers lost: They’re simply wrong.
And they’re wrong not just about their claims to have good evidence of forgery. They’re wrong about the natural born citizen arguments as well.
I won’t attempt a full explanation right now, but the essentials of the NBC situation are:
* Minor v. Happersett did not, as Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo allege, establish a binding precedent for who is a natural born citizen. It’s true that I am not a lawyer. However, this conclusion is clear enough that you really don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. A careful reading of the case — relying on plain English — is almost all that’s necessary.
* United States v. Wong Kim Ark, however, did. I personally am fully convinced of that now. And the precedent that it established was a direct ruling against the birthers’ claims that two citizen parents are required to make a natural born citizen.
At some point I may more fully explain why Wong Kim Ark is so fatal to the birthers’ two-citizen-parents argument.
For now, it’s enough to note that the birthers lost today for the simple reason that — once you really understand the deficiencies of their forgery and two-citizen-parent claims — they never had a decent case to start with.
[Update: I've ended up explaining -- to a pretty fair degree -- the failure of the two-citizen-parent claims in the comments -- read on. And to make it convenient, I've created a special marker for the posts that are most relevant to the core of the false "legal" arguments.
Just follow the orange "explanation trail!"
See also my more recent post, An Open Letter to Mario Apuzzo. And stay tuned -- although the evidence presented is enough in itself to conclude that two-citizen-parents-required claims are without merit, there are even more clear, undeniable fact that show the birther legal position is both incorrect and hopelessly doomed to fail.]