Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals raise the question of whether Donald Trump could sue to have President Obama removed from the ballot for the 2012 election:

Leaders in the so-called "birther" movement argued their case over President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship before a federal appeals court Monday in Southern California, claiming the full birth certificate he released last week had been doctored.

[. . .] The appellate panel wonder[ed] how the lawsuit could have merit, given it was filed after the election and Obama had already taken office. "You did not file a claim at the time when the kind of relief you would be talking about might be plausible," Judge Raymond Fisher said. "It doesn't do anything for your candidates now."

[. . .] Assistant U.S. Attorney David DeJute acknowledged the courts may be the proper venue had a lawsuit challenging a candidate's citizenship been filed before an election. "I think a candidate can challenge the qualification of another candidate, assuming of course that candidate does so in a timely manner," DeJute said.

(Emphasis supplied.) It appears that if Donald Trump runs for President, he could file a "birther" suit against President Obama and seek his removal from the ballot. The ball is in The Donald's court (pun intended), no?

Speaking for me only

Justice, in the sense that a mass murderer has been killed, was done yesterday. No, there was no trial, etc, but Osama bin Laden never questioned his direction of the various acts of terrorism that killed thousands of people. He proudly proclaimed his involvement. His death was justice. Speaking for me only of course.

In terms of policy, does this weaken Al Qaida itself? Perhaps. It does not, in my view, weaken Islamic extremism, called Al Qaida or something else. Combating Islamic extremism remains a major foreign policy priority and foreign policy strategy and decision making requires a close look at impacts on Islamic extremism. The reaction in Pakistan is certainly worth following today.

On a lighter note, can you imagine a worse turn of events for Donald Trump? After becoming the butt of a national joke at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday night, the next night while he was hosting his reality show - a show that, in Trump's words, is "a really successful television show," the President of the United States was reporting to the Nation on a different reality - one that did not involve whether or not to fire Gary Busey. The joke that is Trump, which did not seem possible to be bigger, is now so. What can Trump possibly say now on his "really successful television show's" finale 3 weeks from now? How much more embarrassing can he become for NBC? The end of Trump "Mania" will now be a whimper. An embarrassing whimper.

Speaking for me only

CNN interview:

I have many, many black friends . . .

But are they some of his "best friends?"

And a "world class" gift God has presented.

Smoking Gun:

Despite Donald Trump’s claim this week that he avoided serving in the Vietnam War solely due to a high draft number, Selective Service records show that the purported presidential aspirant actually received a series of student deferments while in college and then topped those off with a medical deferment after graduation that helped spare him from fighting for his country, The Smoking Gun has learned.

[. . . On] October 15 [1969], [Trump's] classification was switched to 1-Y, which was given to men deemed qualified for military service “only in time of national emergency.” The 1-Y classification came a month after Trump underwent an “Armed Forces Physical Examination,” according to Selective Service records, which note the results of the exam as “DISQ.”

Raymond Santana was 14 years old in 1989 when he and four others were wrongfully accused of raping the Central Park jogger. Days after the crime, Donald Trump spent $85,000. on ads in four New York newspapers calling for the death penalty for the five. The ads ran in New York Times, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and New York Newsday, while the jogger was still in the hospital in a coma.

In the ads, which have the banner headline "Bring Back the Death Penalty," Trump wrote, "They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence."

The youths were convicted at trial and sent to prison, but 13 years later, DNA evidence confirmed they were not the attackers. The person whose DNA did match later confessed. Santana is outraged that Trump, to this day, refuses to apologize. [More...]

Robert Gibbs:

"Donald Trump said he’d release his tax returns as soon as the president released his birth certificate, so the ball is in his court now and I know everybody is anxious to see his tax returns over the last 10 years," Gibbs told POLITICO.

The Obama Team loves Trump being a leading GOP light, for good reason.

Speaking for me only

Paul Krugman:

When I listen to current discussions of the federal budget, the message I hear sounds like this: We’re in crisis! We must take drastic action immediately! And we must keep taxes low, if not actually cut them further! You have to wonder: If things are that serious, shouldn’t we be raising taxes, not cutting them?

It's amazing how no one was worried about the budget deficit in December 2010, including President Obama, when The Deal was struck. Krugman writes:

Ezra Klein writes:

So in 1978, Dick Gephardt quite sensibly tied the debt ceiling to the budget: Once Congress decided how much we were going to tax, spend and borrow, the Treasury Department was authorized to carry out those instructions. In 1995, House Republicans wanted leverage over President Bill Clinton, so they brought the debt ceiling back. It’s easier to get people to listen to you if you threaten to destroy their credit rating if they don’t. And now, in 2011, they’re doing it again.

Indeed they are. Here is how Clinton handled their threats in 1995:

Clinton Vetoes Borrowing Bill -- Government Shutdown Nears As Rhetoric Continues To Roil

WASHINGTON - With the clock ticking toward a midnight shutdown, President Clinton vetoed a temporary borrowing bill today and prepared to close most government operations in a jolting political fight with Congress. [. . .] "This is not the time or the place for them to backdoor their budget proposals," [Clinton] said.

After raising taxes on the rich in 1993 and standing up to the GOP on the debt ceiling in 1995, President Clinton won reelection in 1996 in a landslide.

Speaking for me only

In a column critiquing Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare, Paul Krugman writes:

“Consumer-based” medicine has been a bust everywhere it has been tried. To take the most directly relevant example, Medicare Advantage, which was originally called Medicare + Choice, was supposed to save money; it ended up costing substantially more than traditional Medicare. America has the most “consumer-driven” health care system in the advanced world. It also has by far the highest costs yet provides a quality of care no better than far cheaper systems in other countries. [. . . T]here’s something terribly wrong with the whole notion of patients as “consumers” and health care as simply a financial transaction.

Health insurance is inextricably intertwined with the delivery of health care. If markets do not work for health care, they will not work for health insurance either. Controlling health care costs through health insurance exchanges will not work. This is the fatal flaw of the reforms in the Obama health bill.

Speaking for me only

Nate Silver writes a nice article on the online poker issue. As a sports investor, two parts were particularly interesting to me:

Some of the potential replacements for Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars, such as Bodog.com, flout the law much more flagrantly by offering sports betting.

Many states have taken the ludicrous position that poker is not a game of chance, but sports betting is only a game of chancre. Ridiculous. The other part that is interesting to me is this:

NYTimes editorial:

[NJ Governor] Chris Christie canceled [a Hudson River tunnel project] last year, costing his state $3 billion in federal funds. After making that terrible mistake, Mr. Christie now says he wants $570 million in funds to replace another choke point for the Acela — the 100-year-old Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River. He is even willing to put up $150 million of state money, since the bridge is also used by New Jersey commuter trains. In his letter asking for federal funds, he lamented that the bridge, which swings open for river traffic, is “beyond its useful life” and delays trains. That’s rich coming from the man who canceled a project that was vital to ending train delays in the future.

There are many requests, even one from Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who earlier rejected $810 million of these funds. Now he wants $150 million for a modest rail project between Milwaukee and Chicago.

Is the Tea Party ok with this?