SCOTUS

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Yes, today the Supreme Court will consider whether or not to hear a case questioning whether Barack Obama is allowed to serve as President, given the citizenship of his father.

You know that.

What you may not know is that the background process is that ONE justice had to refer the case to a conference. That justice, wait for it, is that bastion of legal knowledge, Clarence Thomas, of coke can fame.

The case considered is different from the spate of them saying that President-elect Obama was not physically born in Hawaii and that the birth certificate was a fraud. This has to do with the British citizenship of his father. So it's a slight twist.

My guess is that the Court will not agree to hear the case for two reasons:

1. They're still smarting over Bush v Gore in 2000.

2. That US Constitution document. The 14th Amendment grants full citizenship to anyone born on U.S. property. (Including, for example, John McCain who was born in Panama when the canal zone was owned by the U.S.)

The amendment was constructed in 1868 for the purposes of granting citizenship to ex-slaves. This "born on U.S. soil" is a different approach from many other countries, wherein citizenship is dictated by the citizenship of the parents. But here, any child born on our soil is "American" irrespective of maternity and paternity.

That of all people, Clarence would choose to send this to conference is offensive and appalling on all levels. It is highly likely that his fellow justices will realize the folly of his decision.

The Supremes

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

In selecting people for positions in the Obama administration, the choice has been "smart and capable." (As an aside, I heard on TV that more than 200,000 people have applied so far for the 7,000 positions available.)

Once the government gets going, there is going to be another position to fill: the first Supreme Court vacancy. The likelihood is that Justice Stevens will serve, at most, to the end of the current term.

My brother and I had a conversation about this last night, and he believes that the initial choice must be an incredibly smart and competent woman, black and/or Hispanic to make the Court look more like America and less like a bunch of old white guys with a token woman, and an African-American wingnut. I care less about race, colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation: I want the brightest, most liberal mind to fill Justice Stevens' seat. I want Russ Feingold.

The choice might be an academic, a judge below the radar (in fact, I have this cousin...), or someone else we might not know yet. Who do you think the first new Justice should be? You can answer either with a name, or whether you agree with my brother that the race, colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation is most important.

And just for the sake of trivia, and knowing that he is NOT a choice for the Supreme Court, why would I mention the name "Hill Harper" in this post?