Please forgive my picking nits, but it should be "hare-brained."

I guess it's Pick on John Day.

"...another leaned scholar..."
What, did he go on a diet?

Consider that nit picked.

And that's the least of this post's problems. The whole thing is a disaster.

There is an important fact you overlook when crying "Media Bias" -- there is an active lawsuit in New Hampshire, against McCain's candidacy, there is no suit against Obama.

The Times also quoted 4 other experts who all came down on McCain's side of the suit. Some people might consider that balanced.

In answer to your last question, is obviously "yes".

So one law professor in Arizona writing a paper saying McCain can't be President? The Times reports on it. So objectivity is dead?

Did you read the whole article

"No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there's a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside," said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

*****

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. "It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing," he said. "It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You'd have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue."

The article also tells of what Law Professor Larry Tribe, advised Barack Obama.

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the "limits and jurisdiction" clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, "is to attribute a crazy design to Congress" that "would create an irrational gap."

Tribe is arguably the most famous liberal law professor in the country. Bill Clinton gave him consideration for the US Supreme court, and Tribe has advised Democratic Senators at the time of the Alito and Roberts nomination, plus I think at some of the nomination battles back in the 80's and 90's. Souter, Thomas, and Bork.

The Times reported on Chin, then in the same article had quoted or told of at least four people who think Chin is wrong. I hardly think the article is biased. As for Professor Chin, he's welcome to his opinion. It's a free country we live in after all.

I'm anxious to learn how many angels Chin believes can dance on the head of a pin.

After reading his rigious analysis I can only...........oh, look! A rabbit!

Since the Canal Zone was a U.S. Territory at the time and his Father was serving in the military and his mother was an accompaning dependent, both being U.S. citizens. (following, moonbats?) There is no valid legal challenge to McCains natural citizenship status. Y'all must really be scared your jug eared newbe can't win.

Objectivity died in this country when the Baby Boomers came of (cronological) age.

At least that's the way I feel.

There has been considerable discussion of the Obama birth certificate issue on other blogs such as Roger Simon's.

The consensus seems to be that whatever "irregularities" (for lack of a better description) there may be, they are inconsequential and not significant.

As for McCain's eligibility I find it unlikely that Tribe and Olsen would come together on this issue if there was indeed a problem. Their collaberation in serving up an opinion on this matter is an encouraging sign that there are still real adults, from both sides, involved in our electoral process.

I've read a couple NYT pieces over the months on this and both clearly stated there really is no "there" there. Yet, they have no problem revisiting the issue and will likely do so again in the near future. It's beyond me why. I mean, if they reiterate that there's really no contest, then why do they keep bringing it up?

Why did it take a few weeks for the "Obama is a secret Muslim" meme to shrivel up and die, Oyster?

Politics are dirty. Bears shit in the woods.

John,

I clicked on the link you provided Obama "Forged Birth Certificate" controversy and the same site has posted an update that totally debunks the Obama birth certificate controversy. I advise you click on the link and read it yourself. However I will include the following quote.

"Days ago I looked into the forged Obama Birth Certificate Myth and realized it was all BS. Basically, we have a lot of people running around making mistakes and then trying to pretend revelations that destroyed their first claims are exposing other, new issues. All I see are people making wild claims, being proved wrong, and then moving onto new wild claims - to be proved wrong again."

It sounds like NY Times did there homework, and that is why there is no mention of the Obama non-issue.

So John, will you be printing a retraction now?