Originally Posted by seattlegal
Um, the lawsuit was filed by a Clinton supporter. Can't blame this on the 'right wing...'
Actually, the lawsuit is not the issue. The issue is an internet rumour to the effect that a judge ordered Obama to produce a birth certificate. That rumour is repeated in the opening post: "Judge orders Obama to produce birth certificate." The rumour is false. No such order has been issued.
Apparently the rumour was promoted in part by means of an e-mail stating in unambiguous terms that Mr. Berg had gotten the court to side with him and ordered Obama to produce a copy of his birth certificate. Here it is:
On September 29, 2008 US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick, the federal magistrate for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in the matter of Philip J. Berg vs Barack Hussein Obama, he has been ordered to supply:
1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate; and
2. a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship;
3. a certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance."
The rumour about the judge's order is false, but this hasn't kept wingnuts from using the rumour as a point of departure for attacking liberals for their supposed willingness to sidestep the US Constitution in order to ensure that Obama's presidency won't be jeopardized.
I see this rumour as a fairly typical example of the RW road show. It's the usual double whammy - attacking a prominent liberal Democratic leader or misrepersenting an issue and then, for good measure, throwing in some half baked negative characterizations of Democrats/liberals as a group. It's been done before and this rumour doesn't exactly improve on past peformance.
The basic idea was to substitute rumour for an actual court finding in order to undermine Obama's stature. The rumour was shored up by right wing websites that pictured an unsigned and undated version of includes a draft order prepared by Mr. Berg that was submitted along with other material when Berg responded to a motion to dismiss. The proposed order is not an official court document. It has been falsely represented as such on right wing web sites.
Obviously this extrajudicial approach to finding Obama guilty of something is very hard to reconcile to right wingers' tendency to portray themselves as though they are defending the Constitution and, as a corrollary, as though they are honoring the sanctity of legitimate legal/institutional process. It's embarassing posturing. It is totally ridiculous for anyone to arrogate personal integrity while at the same time trying to undermine Obama's stature by, for example, concluding that Obama must be a fraud and unqualified to serve as President just because he hired a lawyer.
I am endlessly surprised at the depth some people will go to elect their candidate even at the expense of openly destroying the potency of the constitution, or that which assures the continued ability to make free choice possible.
How can right wingers avoid the impression of phoniness and hypocrisy when they invoke the constitution in such a blatant hoax? For anyone to try to substitute rumour for an actual court finding shows no respect for the Constitution - at least not with regard to the importance of due process.
Selectivity with respect to legal principles confirms the devious nature of the appeal to the legal authority of a judge who hasn't even acted on the matter in an attempt to add source credibility to a falsehood.
This hoax is an instance of frauds alleging fraud. It bespeaks the kind of second rate propaganda dressed up as journalism by which conservatives are burying themselves.