The American Spectator

On the Friday after Election Day, blogress Joan Swirsky excitedly claimed that the Supreme Court was about to act:

Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg…that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied.  

This was almost entirely humbug. It was true—and wholly unsurprising—that Souter had denied Berg’s request to postpone the election. It was also true that December 1 was the deadline for responses to Berg’s petition for certiorari (i.e., his request for the high court to hear an appeal). But Obama was not required to respond, and he did not. The dismissal of Berg’s case was based on well-settled law, so there was no reason to expect the high court to agree to review it. Even if it had, the only question before the justices would have been whether the dismissal was in error. Under no circumstances would the Supreme Court have demanded evidence of fact, such as an “authentic” birth certificate.

Bob Bartley, the legendary editor of the Wall Street Journal, observed late in his life that the trouble with the web is its lack of editors. This shortcoming was glaringly on display during last year’s election. It is the reason the conservative blogosphere in 2008 turned out to be not all it was cracked up to be in 2004.