Judge James Robertson shows keen lack of intellectual integrity (natural born citizen lawsuit)

Posted Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm

United States District Judge James Robertson has thrown out a lawsuit that was challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president. The Associated Press report from Nedra Pickler is here, and the PDF with his ruling is here. The ruling might be correct in legal terms, but the opinions he expresses show that he lacks intellectual curiousity and integrity.

From the PDF:

This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end... ...The issue of the President's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

1. No judge should use a loaded and pejorative term like "conspiracy theorists", especially since some "conspiracy theories" have later proved to be founded in fact. In fact, if you described this scheme to most people who hadn't heard of it they'd probably think it was fiction, yet it's true.

2. In his laundry list, James Robertson forgets to mention that the birth certificate side of things has been constantly lied about; see the Obama citizenship page for all the details and a list of some of those who've lied about that issue. That doesn't mean that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. It does mean, however, that an intellectually honest judge should take that into account. If he's not aware of how that issue has been lied about, then he isn't qualified to write such a statement.

His bio is here: dcd.uscourts.gov/robertson-bio.html. He's a Bill Clinton appointee who co-chaired the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Obama was a member of the Chicago branch of that organization. Looking into whether they could have crossed paths is left as an exercise.

He also worked for Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, now known as Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr or WilmerHale. Jamie Gorelick is currently a partner there, and some from that firm have been appointed to the Obama administration (link, link).

There are several excerpts from news articles about him here, and more on him here, ending with:

Judge Robertson was responsible for dropping two charges against Clintonista and Friend of Hillary, Web Hubbell. "Don't be surprised if Democrats win the White House one of their nominations to the Supreme Court is Judge James Robertson. Don't be surprised, " said Sid Francis.

At some point, he served as president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc. (sals.org) That group was founded in 1979; shortly after that time Obama was active in the apartheid movement. Seeing whether he and Robertson could have crossed paths at that time is left to the reader.

Tags: 
bill clinton
obama citizenship
james robertson

Comments

sus (not verified)

Fri, 03/06/2009 - 23:00

From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ... So... Obama would be in Indonesia in the 3rd Grade.... and somehow he crossed paths with the Judge in Chicago. Makes as much sense as the rest of your theories. All your theories are hooey.

Mary (not verified)

Fri, 03/06/2009 - 23:22

There should be a mandatory course in high school on the constitution and on Government ...for all the morons who don't have a clue about the founding of their own country.

Leave it to Beaner (not verified)

Sat, 03/07/2009 - 05:39

Even if it were proven that hoe-bama was not legally qualified to the President... Do you think our adorable minorities would lawfully allow the removal of their God? Not a chance.

Steve (not verified)

Sat, 03/07/2009 - 09:36

Wingnuttery AND bigotry. Classy.

Dr. Conspiracy (not verified)

Sat, 03/07/2009 - 13:58

The Biography URL for Judge Robertson in the article is in error. The correct URL is: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/robertson-bio.html Judge Robertson also served as president of the District of Columbia Bar and is an ex-Navy man.

Mike (not verified)

Sat, 03/07/2009 - 20:24

Obama's so called birth certificate. Registered #-NONE Registration district#- NONE Child's birth#-NONE Father's place of birth-NONE Mother's place of birth-NONE Father's occupation-NONE Signature of registrar-NONE Name of hospital-NONE Name of doctor-NONE Name of witness or registrar-NONE Raised seal-NONE Doctor's license#-NONE State the doctor is licensed in?-NONE Signature of doctor-NONE

Mary (not verified)

Sat, 03/07/2009 - 22:42

What's he hiding?

Ken Roth (not verified)

Sun, 03/08/2009 - 11:05

The issue is not whether Obama is eligible to be president. It is whether the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" or not. The people's electing him has nothing to do with the question of eligibility. What do they know, and how could they know? Since ther is allegedly a valid birth certificate that corroborates his eligibility, then the judge, in adhering to his oath to preserve the Constitution, must demand that Obama release it. There is no reasonable reason for the refusal to do so. If Obama can flaunt the Constitution, then everyone has the right to disobey all laws and perhapse (as an example) start robbing banks. (fairly dumb example, but it makes the point. If he is truly eligible, I have no problem with Obama holding the office. I just want the Constitution upheld. Does that make me a "nut" conspiracy or otherwise?

Donald (not verified)

Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:08

What we are seeing is a continuation of cover up to keep the Chosen One in the White House. It is people with money paying other with with money to keep the truth from the people who have little or no money. Obama himself could flat out state he is unqualified by virtue of birth to hold office and no one would take steps to remove. The folks with the money are telling, will continue to tell you and your family who to support, how much to donate to their party and when to keep your mouths shut. Don't think for one moment any of you have a one word of input into the way this country is run. You are cannon fodder and slaves; Accept it.

Bon' (not verified)

Sun, 03/08/2009 - 22:57

How can Robertson judge who was injured and who wasn't until he proves that Obama is eligible to be president? Can the veterans file a suit that shows they suffered actual harm and emotional distress when they are not allowed to know where the president was born? http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4594 Where did Judge Robertson serve when he was in the Navy? ONI Robertson graduated from Princeton as did Michele Obama. Were Michele & Barry on the Lawyers Committee in Chicago when Robertson was co-chair in DC? Frivolous? If Robertson's definition of a citizens right to petition the court is "FRIVOLOUS" then why does a citizen have to swear to take an oath in court when he testifies? Would Robertson call that FRIVOLOUS as well? Would Robertson consider a sworn oath frivolous in terms of military enlistment? Did Robertson take the oath of office in the Navy? Did he take the oath to serve as a Judge in DC? Are these FRIVOLOUS questions? NO!

sus (not verified)

Mon, 03/09/2009 - 12:51

Here's a conspiracy. Why didn't Phil Berg schedule the pro hac vice hearing as the judge ordered him to? What does he have to hide? When the judge ordered him to schedule that hearing, why didn't he?

Mary (not verified)

Mon, 03/09/2009 - 14:25

Saul Alinsky would be proud!

petty bourgeois (not verified)

Mon, 03/09/2009 - 14:52

"Wingnuttery AND bigotry. Classy. Steve | 03.07.09 - 7:41 am" Ad hominem instead of a rational argument. Stupid.

Ken Roth (not verified)

Mon, 03/09/2009 - 20:01

Doesnt sound like anyone read or undersstood mine Obama is not the issue--the Constitution is (as is the rule of law. Article 6 ss 2 states{ This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The question raised (and legitimately so) is whether Mr. Obama is constitutionally allowed to occupy the office of president. If he is a "natural born citizen", he is--period end of discussion. If not he is not--period end of discussion. The issue can be quickly and easily resolved by ordering him or the state of Hawaii to release his BIRTH CERTIFICATE--not document of live birth. The certificate will show, quite quickly, his status. The import is that in ignoring the questions by refusing to hear it, or as in the case of the "conspiracy nut" conspirators like this judge, they are violating their oath of office to preserve protect and the defend the Constitution. This judge and all others who have cavalierly dismissed the law suits filed should--no must-- be removed from office for that violation. You don't prove someone wrong by calling him or her names! You use evidence!

ali waris (not verified)

Tue, 08/04/2009 - 19:54

If you give me an email address whereby I could attach documents, I will show you how political and dishonest Judge Robertson is. Thanks.

Not Awingnut (not verified)

Tue, 09/29/2009 - 21:58

I'm not a wing nut! I'm not I'm not! Please listen to me so I won't be what you way I am! Waaah!!