The U.S. Supreme Court turned down a case today that put into question Barack Obama’s citizenship… presented by some random dude from New Jersey. I’m sorry, but it’s kind of ridiculous to suddenly demand that one may only be eligible to be president if both of his or her parents were natural-born citizens as well as the president (his dad was from Kenya). Isn’t that the American story? On Thursday, San Francisco swore in David Campos, who was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala; he moved here when he was 14, worked to get scholarships to Stanford and later Harvard Law, and is now on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Even still, Obama has a U.S.-issued birth certificate, and he was born in one of the 50 states.

I also can’t believe the arguments that Hawaii wasn’t a state when Obama was born there (which it was — he was born in 1961, statehood was 1959). I think part of it was that Obama, because Barack Sr. was British Kenyan, had dual citizenship…so, how dare he even possibly have a dual citizenship as a baby!! The guy has had to go through a hell of a lot of clearance in order to even just be put on the primary ballot, and I’m sure that included verifying all of his federal records, like his passport, criminal record, and birth certification.

Seriously, with a name like Barack Hussein Obama, if he were truly duping us all, wouldn’t he have picked a more boringly American name, like Dan? Something that was more along the lines of Kirkpatrick or Johnson for a last name?! Ah!

And honestly, I’m shocked that this docket even MADE IT to the SCOTUS but, sadly, Clarence Thomas was all about it!! According to Top of the Ticket, Clarence Thomas was actually circulating this mess around to the other justices, like “omg!! check this out, totally crazy!!” At least that’s how I picture it.

I do wonder if similar conspiracy-based lawsuits would have gone to the courts if John McCain won the presidency — he was born on a U.S. naval base in Panama, where his father was stationed.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Wow, so Sarah Palin delivered this doozie to Katie Couric earlier this week, when she asked Palin what Supreme Court cases she didn’t agree with, aside from Roe v. Wade:

“What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?” Ms. Couric asked Ms. Palin.
And then:
PALIN: Well, let’s see. There’s –of course –in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are–those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know–going through the history of America, there would be others but–
COURIC: Can you think of any?
PALIN: Well, I could think of–of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I’m so privileged to serve, wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

And it made me think instantly of a Supreme Court case that I personally did not agree with, and I’m sure none of you do either:

Plessy V. Ferguson - Perhaps it was because it was the first court case I had ever heard of (thanks Dad! The second case was Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy about 60 years later). Even if I were asked this question, and couldn’t think of anything else, this would have been a good jumping off point for Palin to talk about inequality of people (like women), and how it’s unjust. It would have been rather neutral for her to say that “segregation is a no-no, Katie!” and then move on.

And I’m sure that as a hunter, she could have thought of some sort of gun-controlling Second Amendment case that the court ruled on within the past 200 years. I mean, I am no legal scholar, but I know a lot of court cases that effect me (and my work): New York Times v. United States, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Lawrence v. Texas, Regents of California v. Bakke, the other 2 I mentioned above…

My point is, why is it that being a citizen means that you don’t need to be engaged, and don’t know things that happen in the government that effect you? Is it really wrong that she doesn’t know one case other than Roe v. Wade? Perhaps she doesn’t know any cases that don’t effect her that she conflicts with? Maybe for the average person, having in-depth knowledge of the history of the Supreme Court isn’t necessary. But shouldn’t politicians have at least a frizbee-deep knowledge of the nation’s highest court? Just sayin…

Our first female Supreme Court Justice is back in action, but now she’s schooling the youngns. Sandra Day O’Connor is developing a free interactive website for kids in junior high school about — what else?!– the U.S. court system. “Our Courts” will let students participate in mock trials and investigations. The site will be launched this fall.

Come on RBG, you’re next! When’s Ruth going to come out with a virtual reality game about judicial collars?