The Freep finally got a response from H Brooke Paige about SCOTUS' rejection of his Quixotic birther-not-birther suit:

Paige said Thursday he would ask the nation’s highest court to reconsider its decision, but acknowledged getting it to change its mind on the matter is unlikely.

“It saddens me to see our Constitution being treated as a list of suggestions, a smorgasbord of ideas or worst of all treated with the same respect afforded toilet tissue,” Paige said. “I can almost hear the Founders and Framers groaning in their graves.”

That's pretty defeatist for Paige, who greeted SCOV's dismissal of the case almost with enthusiasm last year: “[It's] as positive a ruling as I could have anticipated.”  Maybe reality is finally sinking in after SCOTUS has refused to hear birther arguments over two dozen times?

The article also notes that Paige has not pressed the usual eligibility case, which relies on the ridiculously debunked theory that Obama wasn’t born in the US, but rather:

[Paige] based his challenge to Obama on an interpretation of historical papers the country’s framers relied on at the time the Constitution was written that said a natural-born citizen was someone who was born of parents who were both American citizens.

Our friend has famously called birther arguments “sheer flights of fancy.”  His “interpretation of historical papers” is also quite fanciful, but points to him once again for acknowledging that Obama was born in Hawaii (which is part of the US). 

Sadly, the larger reality still evades Vermont's Best Birther.  Obama's president because he is a natural born citizen.  It's that simple.

Paige might be able to hear the Framers groaning in their graves, but I'm fairly certain that they are not only silent, but also that they'd appreciate SCOTUS' making independent decisions to grant cert (per the Court's Rule 10).  The Judiciary ain't a separate, coequal branch for nothing.

That branch has, whenever presented an opportunity to agree with Paige et al, has declined to do so, either by explicitly ruling against birther arguments or through other procedural mechanisms.  Probably because they have pretty decent reading comprehension.  And naturally none of this means the Constitution is just a suggestion or somehow disrespected: judges at all levels are doing their jobs by interpreting history and law, and just happen to disagree with some major crackpots.

Perhaps we should take a collection to buy Paige this book.  It's time for him to break his nasty habit and move on to something more productive.  At some point you have to recognize that the problem's not them, it's you…

ntodd