Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, Law, Obama denialism
The PUMAs, conspiracy theorists, and election denialists of the world continue to bemoan a constitutional crisis that will never come, and wait with bated breath to see whether the Supreme Court will, after a conference, accept appellate review of Leo Donofrio’s state-law claim that the New Jersey Secretary of State failed to appropriately vet the eligibility of President-Elect Obama. Per SCOTUS’ website, the cert. conference is set for today… but per SCOTUSblog, a website run by appellate advocates and professional Court-watchers, Donofrio v. Wells is nowhere on today’s docket.
I have a theory as to what that means, and here’s a hint: “in the matter of Donofrio v. Wells, Docket #08A407, certiorari denied without opinion.”
Expect a full admission this afternoon, from Leo Donofrio, that his case was denied, dismissed, etc., etc. We’ll report on it as it happens. In the meantime, if you’re new to this controversy, read some of our prior articles:
- Amateur historian and neo-confederate “JudahBenjamin,” who’s spent a good long while speculating as to why President-Elect Obama may be ineligible to serve, has wasted his life.
- Leo Donofrio, the aforementioned pro-se (self represented) litigant pushing a similar claim on SCOTUS, suffers from similar failings. You know what they say: a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client…
- Even assuming his claim had merit, it likely falls outside the field of SCOTUS’ appellate review, as it derives from state law, making his defeat at the New Jersey Supreme Court final.
Oh, and one more thing. You should probably take this case no more seriously than the defendant (NJ Secretary of State Wells) and the party in interest (Barack Obama) take it. Obama declined to exercise his right to intervene and brief the case as an amicus. Mrs. Wells submitted a five-page letter as her brief. In other words, they’re not worried. Just saying…
UPDATE: per Loquitor (commenting below), the Court today granted certiorari in two cases – guess what’s not on the list? We can therefore assume the Court denied certiorari, permanently ending Donofrio’s quest to tilt at this particular windmill. Shocking.
In *more interesting* news, the Court (unsurprisingly) took certiorari of Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, a case that poses the question of whether the President can permanently detain legal U.S. residents without charge. I’ll say no… the Fourth Circuit said no, too, at least not without due process. Unlike Donofrio’s case, the plaintiff in Al-Marri (Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri) actually suffered a real injury, poses a legal question that won’t waste the Supreme Court’s time, and engages the attention of real lawyers. Donofrio should take notes.
Filed under: Author - ACG,Culture,Politics,Religion,Science | Tags: Creationism, Fundamentalism, Law, Politicized Science, Religious politics
Per PZ Myers and Greg Laden, an idea is circulating on the Obama transition team’s website – change.org – to institute national science standards on the issue of evolution. Specifically, the “cause” supporter calls for:
National standards on the teaching of Evolution and the origins of life, decided on and created by top scientists from significant scientific organizations, should direct curricula of all schools nationwide, overriding any state laws on the subjects.
Of course, ideas submitted to change.org are just that: ideas circulated by average citizens for public and informal “voting,” which of course binds nobody. But this one has some merit. America’s scientific hegemony fuels its economic power, and ensures the triumph of American arms abroad. A scientifically literate populace is a prosperous & secure populace; anti-intellectualism, on the other hand, undermines both securities.
During the Cold War, a recognition of this value, coupled with a healthy fear of the rate of Soviet innovation, placed science education all of a sudden at the top of national priorities. But for some reason – perhaps because we can have no principled fear of Osama Bin Laden (1) building a time machine, (2) saving Hitler’s brain, and (3) unleash Nazi-robots on Manhattan – science education dropped on the priorities list. Ensuring that America’s public school children receive a scientifically sound education, explicitly including “controversial” subjects, would go a long way towards protecting our interest in a scientifically-minded populace, and the spillover effects (shoring up respect for academia) could be fantastic.
That said, there are real reasons to query whether implementing a national policy requiring a sound education in evolution would be either feasible or constitutional. The prospect of a national mandate that all public schools, in all states and municipalities, must teach a certain subject, is deeply troubling. Though I defer to the experts (anyone out there?), I doubt the Department of Education’s regulatory power extends that far, and I also doubt the ability of the Commerce Clause to sweep so broadly (bad education is a problem among, not between the states, and the distinction is constitutionally critical). Even assuming Congress (or an agency) could constitutionally require all public schools to teach evolution, though, if the Obama administration pushed that far, they could reap the anger of not only religious fanatics, but principled, states’-rights federalists too. After all, local school boards are used to policymaking, within certain boundaries: further circumscribing that right could start firestorm, resulting in squandered political capital.
Alternately, Congress could create a grant program tied to certain teaching standards, pursuant to its ability to condition funding on legitimate federal objectives. Under this scheme, Congress would appropriate a significant, enticingly large sum of money to be used by the states on improving science education at the local level, subject to proof that all schools in the state teach evolution. While this plan would be politically easier to swallow, it could raise alternate problems. Even setting aside the obvious (enforcement), tied grants could risk holding entire states hostage to a few stubborn districts, and ultimately result only in more disparity in science education. Pro-science districts would get richer, while creationist districts could force whole states to become poorer, more backwards, and increasingly dogmatic.
It may not be the sexiest of topics, but a major priority for the incoming administration should be restoring a basic respect for the sciences, even and especially in the controversial fields (evolution/climate change). Flat-out regulation, though, may not be the best answer, and I admit that I’m not sure what the best answer is (perhaps a latter-day Apollo Project, or comparable great public work?). But how nice to have the chance to talk about making inroads in American science, rather than having to continuously to hold the line against ignorance and politicized science. Let’s just hope America’s latest William Jennings Bryan keeps to herself in Alaska.
It seems I’ve struck a nerve. My previous post, slamming Leo Donofrio for what I generously call his “legal theories” alleging President-Elect Obama’s ineligibility to serve, continues to rack up comments here (read one gem) and at Donofrio’s own blog, on his latest thread, where one of his readers seems to think I’m a transition team lawyer. Rock!
With all of this attention, I’m sad to say that the case will come to a screeching halt tomorrow, when after a conference between all nine Justices, the group will vote to deny certiorari (appellate review), letting stand the adverse judgment. I’ve covered in the aforementioned article a few reasons why they’ll deny review, but here’s one more.
The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction only allows it to take review of state court decisions if the state court below adjudicated a federal right. Accordingly, SCOTUS does not have discretionary review over state-law claims unless a federal right is raised, and Donofrio’s only complaint (as far as I can see from the few documents he’s posted) is that the New Jersey Secretary of State failed to discharge her legal duties, by not reviewing Obama’s eligibility. In short, his complaint derives only from state law: although his complaint would raise serious federal questions, if it were true, the general implication of federal interests is insufficient to confer appellate review, where the plaintiff has not himself raised an injury deriving from federal law. This is the problem with Donofrio’s complaint: while suing in state court on state-law claims gets him around the federal standing bar that killed Berg v. Obama, it means he’s not himself alleging a federal injury (although he, theoretically, could have).
Of course, I could be wrong. If the complaint raises a federal question, maybe the Supreme Court could (theoretically) take appellate review. Problem is, Donofrio hasn’t posted the complaint on any of his three websites. I’ll call him tomorrow to ask for it (he published his contact info).