Berg v. Obama Opinion & Analysis
posted by Dave Hoffman
The opinion is clearly written, and has in mind an audience consisting of non-lawyers. (See the explanation of standing doctrine in particular). As a commentator to an earlier thread here noted, Judge Surrick relies particularly heavily on Hollander v. McCain. There’s also a interesting point in footnote 13, i.e., that Congress could confer standing on citizens to litigate these kind of qualification challenges. I’m not sure that’s actually true.
Finally, you’ve got to love the attention that Judge Surrick gave to Berg’s frivolous promissory estoppel claim. The key sentence is:
“[O]ur political system could not function if every political message articulated by a campaign could be characterized as a legally binding contract enforceable by individual voters . . . Federal courts . . . are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric.”
No, sadly, I guess not. But think how fun it would be.