Below The Beltway

The Columbus Ledger-Enqurier has a great editorial up today about a certain dentist/lawyer/real estate agent that has invaded their town several times since June:

More time to fight a threatened $10,000 court fine apparently isn’t the only extension Orly Taitz wants. She’s also trying to squeeze a few more seconds out of her allotted, and conspicuously expired, 15 minutes of fame.

In anything resembling a sane world, she would fail on both counts.

Taitz, the “birther” lawyer whose outlandish claims on behalf of soldiers who want to get out of doing their jobs just keep getting more absurd, has now hit a new and, God willing, final low: She has submitted an affidavit calling on U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land to recuse himself.

Taitz’s “case” for this motion consists of (a) a claim that Land has a potential conflict of interest because he owns stock in Microsoft and Comcast (don’t even try to wring a rational connection out of that); and (b) a suggestion, based on an apparently spectral apparition of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, that the judge (an appointee of President George W. Bush) may have been improperly influenced by the Obama administration.

The latter is especially intriguing. It comes from one Robert D. Douglas of Alma, Ga., who says that while he was waiting in a coffee shop across the street before the hearing on Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook’s “birther” claims, he saw Holder enter the federal courthouse.

Could it be, asks Mr. Douglas’ affidavit, that Holder “may have had a little ‘whisper in the ear’ to a federal judge in order to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the president’s agenda of obstruction?”

Could it be that Holder was 3,000 miles away at the time, giving a speech in Los Angeles?

Oops.

This just keeps getting more bizarre, but it has stopped being funny. It’s time for judicial authorities — the U.S. attorney with jurisdiction over this region, perhaps the State Bar of Georgia — to look into Taitz’s waste of federal court time and taxpayer money in filings that have sunk to a level the term “frivolous” unjustly dignifies.

And let us be spared, please, any feeble argument that sanctions against Taitz would be a First Amendment issue. Orly Taitz has the same freedom as her singularly unimpressive roster of clients — to stand on every street corner and claim, if she likes, that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president, that hers is a historic crusade, that she comes from a distant galaxy to bring justice to the primitive people of planet Earth.

It’s also time for responsible voices of the loyal opposition to publicly disavow Orly Taitz, her obnoxious harassment of the court system and everything that effort stands for.

Taitz compares herself to Thurgood Marshall, and her quest to the cause of civil rights. More likely, she is destined to be a footnote in law books and the increasingly obscure answer to a trivia question.

Well said guys, very well said.