ConfirmThem

I think introducing the topic of Obama's birth certificate is really not appropriate to this site. It might be more appropriate at Redstate, but not here. The practical reality of the situation is that Barack Obama is the president. The practical reality of the situation is that Sonia Sotomayor is an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The practical reality of the situation is that Obama will nominate and the Senate will confirm various people to the federal judiciary. Let's not get bogged down in a topic that won't stop the inevitable. We should concentrate on the judicial philosophy of Obama's nominees and not whether it is even legitimate for Obama to make nominations.

There are some who claimed Bush's appointments (or, at the minimum, any first term Bush SCOTUS appointment, if one had happened) would be illegit due to Bush v Gore.

Theres not really much to discuss.

If you click on the word "backtracked" in the post, you'll see that a large portion of the population considers the current presidency as possibly illegitimate. By extension, at least one member of the Supreme Court will now face the same consideration. I do not share the view that there is any illegitimacy, but that view is a real problem.

Unlike Bush v. Gore, the problem could be easily addressed and erased, as Andrew Sullivan described in the blockquote that I put in the post. So, I have no regrets about the post. It seems relevant.

Bringing up this kind of stuff is beneath the dignity of this blog. I'd go further and say that it is beneath the level of the conservative movement.

Leave this kind of garbage to those on the Left, as that's about all they are good at. Andrew Sullivan spewed every discredited rumor about Governor Palin last fall as far as he could vomit it, and I really could care less about what he has to say.

OMG, AndrewHyman, are you kidding me? All of us *non*-posters (BoBo, zendari, bk, Classic, olly, JamesSmith130 and myself) have been having serious, thoughtful discussions recently about 1) Sotomayor's nomination and confirmation vote, 2) how to improve the judicial confirmation process, 3) the recent spate of COA nominees, and 4) who Obama's next COA nominees might end up being.

And as a poster, you have this great platform here, and you're *still* using it to raise -- in a backhanded manner -- questions about Obama's eligibility and why he won't release his long-form? (Whenever someone says something like, "I won't raise this issue, but I'm sure others will," it's just a backhanded way of trying to raise that specific issue.) Sheeesh. I obsessively read all the conservative and liberal news and opinion sites and journals that I can get my hands on, and I can promise you that your post is the single first time I've seen *anyone*, anywhere, even hint at Sotomayor's appointment not being thought of as legitimate by anyone due to the idiotic birth-certificate controversy. Not even the loons at WorldNetDaily have yet suggested that Sonia might not be a legitimate member of the SCOTUS. So is it a view that's a "real problem, as you write"? Gee, I dunno. It clearly doesn't seem to be a problem for Obama himself or for the Democratic Party as a whole, since they're clearly not bothering to do anything about it. If anything, they seem to be mildly enjoying this, figuring that it will ultimately reflect more poorly on the GOP as a whole than anything else (and that's a view I share as well; remember the Democrats' attacks on Bush's National Guard service? How did those work out for Kerry in 2004?). In the end, attacks like this almost always end up backfiring, and I have a feeling that this one will backfire -- and hard -- on Republicans in 2012.

Federal judges (the ostensible subject of this site) consistently have rejected birthers' claims -- including the SCOTUS (on which Sonia now sits), which has declined to hear suits on the matter fully three times. Even the House -- the most directly democratically accountable branch of government -- recently voted unanimously to acknowledge Hawaii as the place of Obama's birth. I don't know what more there is to say about the subject at this particular site. There are plenty of other sites harping on this issue, including those speculating on Obama's reasons for not releasing anything more (e.g., he doesn't want to hand the birthers a "win," he knows nothing he releases will ever satisfy 'em anyhow, he doesn't want to have to explain why he took so long, he surely doesn't want to then get bombarded with requests for other documents from his past), and there's no use in rehashing those any further, I don't think. Until a *federal judge* rules something -- anything -- favorable toward the birthers, we should leave discussion of this nonsense to places like WorldNetDaily.

C'mon, Andrew -- you're outvoted on this one at ConfirmThem. Even Ed Whelan is ignoring the birth certificate issue. I suggest you do the same. How about giving us a post on something else instead -- who you think the next SCOTUS justice will be to step down? How you'd improve the judicial nomination process? What your thoughts are on blue slips? What you're hearing will be done with the vacant 4th Circuit seats assigned to SC? What your take is on Obama's first seven COA nominees? Something. Anything, other than this birth certificate nonsense.

If you look in Google News, there are 3432 hits on this topic. That includes from the leading newspapers and TV networks in the country. As far as I recall, I briefly mentioned the controversy a couple times over the past year, but this is the first and only full only the second post about it. I don't see why it should be taboo here. I don't anticipate any further posts about it, so you can relax.

Also, see crap like this.

Are you sure that the post above is really your "first and only full post" about the birth certificate nonsense, AndrewHyman?

What about this post below by you on the birth certificate issue, from late October -- this one seems like a pretty full post to me......

http://www.confirmthem.com/id_like_to_spread_a_silly_rumor

More to the point, I'm not sure what you wrote just now (in your "Folks" comment) has anything to do with the points that BoBo, zendari, JamesSmith130 and I are making. This may be a newsworthy issue (so, for that matter, is the divorce of Jon & Kate Gosselin, or the death of Michael Jackson). It just doesn't make it an issue that has anything to do with confirming (or not confirming) federal judges and judicial philosophy in general. Someone please correct me if they feel differently. (Otherwise, I'll have to start using these forums to give you all my opinions about Kate Gosselin's hairstyle. Or about the Florida Gators' chances for winning the BCS title this year.)

You're right, I had forgotten about that other post. Thanks for the correction. I've done a strikethrough on my previous comment. Also, I've wikilinked the word "question" in the post.

As far as releasing the long-form certificate is concerned, it would "CONFIRM" the legitimacy of the President and his appointments in the minds of millions of Americans. I don't need any further "CONFIRMATION" myself, but evidently a large segment of the population does.

"it would "CONFIRM" the legitimacy of the President and his appointments in the minds of millions of Americans"

as Bill O'Reilly recently said on his show, do not want to be convinced. Unfortunately we've got our kooks too.

When O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and several conservative congresspeople state that they looked into the evidence and found two newspapers back in 1961 announcing Obama's birth in Hawaii as well as several Hawaii officials who claim to have inspected the birth certificate, I'm satisfied that he was born in Hawaii.

I'm also satisfied that he was born in Hawaii. The newspaper announcements are not really relevant, because they were automatically placed by the state Department of Health whenever anyone got a birth certificate, regardless of whether it was a documented hospital birth or an undocumented home birth. The Hawaii officials who inspected the original 1961 certificate have not hinted one way or the other as to whether it was a documented hospital birth or an undocumented home birth. I am certain it was the former, but why not release the form to prove it for the skeptics?

Read this: "Yale's Bruce Ackerman gave away the game when he charged that, since Mr. Bush took power in a 'coup,' the Senate should refuse to confirm any of his Supreme Court nominees." By no stretch of the imagination am I making a similar assertion about Obama's nominees. On the contrary, my post was simply directed at suggesting a way for Obama to do what Bush could not, i.e. make the whole question go away.

No one at the White House has denied that they have a copy of the long-form certificate, nor has anyone in the Hawaiian state government said that they would not provide a copy of that document upon request of the President.

The White House Press Secretary said the following this week: "Tell me if you've heard one that's this totally crazy….A pregnant woman leaves her home to go overseas to have a child -- who there's not a passport for -- so is in cahoots with someone...to smuggle that child, that previously doesn't exist on a government roll somewhere back into the country and has the amazing foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers? All while this is transpiring in cahoots with those in the border, all so some kid named Barack Obama could run for President 46 and a half years later. You couldn't sell that to the WB." Basically, this is all incorrect.

Federal regulations in 1961 allowed travel without a passport between the U.S. and "any country or territory in North, Central, or South America," with the exception of Cuba. Thus, Obama's mother could have easily travelled via Vancouver, Canada which is very near Seattle, Washington. It is known without any doubt that Obama's mother was in Seattle in late August 1961. So, the questions are not as farfetched as the White House portrays. I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that's no reason to cover up the birth certificate, is it?

That is some stretch -- that this wingnut topic is somehow relevant for ConfirmThem because it would "confirm" the legitimacy of the president and his appointments in the minds of others. I'm pretty sure that the legitimacy of his *appointments* (judicial or otherwise) is far, far from the minds of most birthers. Nah, by and large they still have trouble accepting the fact that Obama won and are trying to figure out some way to make it so that gosh golly, he didn't. As JamesSmith130 and O'Reilly both have noted, nothing is ever going to convince the vast majority of birthers, and I know that you know that. Ultimately, as I keep saying, this issue has next to nothing to do with judges, anyhow, Andrew -- it only will if a federal judge someday rules anything that even remotely supports their belief.

But regardless, methinks thou doth protest just a wee bit too much with your comments. You keep writing you think Obama was born in Hawaii and that you don't need any further confirmation yourself, and yet you keep raising standard birther rejoinders for every argument that Obama's defenders make. It sounds to me like you *don't* particularly believe he was born in this country. If you really do believe that he was, then what do you care if there are wackos out there who don't? (I never thought Vince Foster was murdered, for instance, but I sure didn't spend a lot of time worrying about those who thought he was. Ditto for rumors that Bush knew about 9/11.) What harm is it to you if there are flustered, crazed birthers out there questioning the legitimacy of the president? In fact, given that you didn't support Obama, you would be, I would think, thrilled that such suspicions are out there. (And more to the point, you sure sound a lot more interested in discussing this subject than any of the other judge-related topics that the rest of us have been involved in here.)

Let's talk about who benefits from a long-form document release. You write that you want him to release the long-form so he can "prove it for the skeptics." Yeah, right. You know darn well that the release of the long-form won't prove anything to any birther. Instead, you actually want him to release it so he can start engaging with the birthers (which is not exactly a presidential move). Deep down, you know that this story goes away quicker if birthers are dismissed as crackpots than if he starts responding to their (surely unending and loony) requests. And Obama knows that as well. Regardless of his performance as president, everyone here should agree that he's a skilled tactician (he knocked off Hillary, and he steamrolled McCain) who didn't make a lot of mistakes in '08. I thoroughly believe that he and his advisors know well what they're doing by almost entirely ignoring this issue -- they're assuming that it ultimately will be judged by the public as the Vince Foster suicide theory was, or the Ron Brown murder theory, or the Clinton enemies list, or the "Bush knew about 9/11!" theory. People in the long run (come election time) just didn't care. Most mainstream GOP strategists know that as well -- that's why most mainstream right-leaning commentators are so dismissive of this subject; they're scared witless that overplaying this hand will cost the GOP big-time not just in 2012 but also in 2010, a year that should be chock full of Republican pick-ups.

Now, how about that new post? No, not the open thread -- we appreciate that too, but c'mon: give us a post on a judge-related subject. We're dying for it, Andrew!

StayUpLate, you can rationalize covering up the birth certificate all you want, but there's simply no legitimate justification for suppressing it. As for me making "standard birther rejoinders," no, I looked up the 1961 passport regulations myself. I also sincerely believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and I've said that previously at confirmthem. If you don't believe me, that's your prerogative, I guess.