When the Supremes interpret the meaning of a statute, Congress usually has a chance to pass a new one in such a way that the ruling is in effect reversed. This includes if you think they did their job, but the law itself is wrong. A majority in the Senate wishes to do this in a gender pay case, but McCain et. al. in the minority blocked it. McCain is all for gender equality (like he was for avoiding Bush tax cuts?) but not so much when enforcement is at issue. His power to nominate judges as well as the value of having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate again comes to mind. But, hey, he's a "maverick," so problemo.
Meanwhile, Christine Todd Whitman (remember her?) is off the hook for misleading NYC that things were clearly safe a few days after 9/11, something the EPA's own inspector general criticized. There cannot even be a trial (contra the district court ruling) to determine if her acts shocked the conscience. This situation is yet another case of the Bush Administration not being able to understand that there are sometimes shades of grey. Or, the importance of open hearings. One person who replied to a post I had about this case way back played dumb and couldn't understand why I thought it was so wrong that they couldn't even have a hearing. Oh well.
The Democratic candidates for President co-sponsored a resolution attempting to clarify the meaning of the opaque "natural born" requirement to be POTUS. Or, rather, that John McCain himself is one. The sponsor noted that suggesting McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, then under U.S. control) was not eligible was "a notion that defies common sense and certainly offends all of our patriotism." Well, the resolution that singled out a MoveOn.org ad for denunciation surely did. Though Hillary Clinton might not think so.
The opaque nature of the clause suggests that it might not do the former, and it surely would not do the latter if it was based on what the Constitution itself demands. A bill is also in the works that would hold that "any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces" is meets the Art. II definition of "natural born." In effect, we would have a "blood" definition of the term. What about diplomatic corps etc.?
Anyway, one doubts the courts would get a chance to interpret the point, and so we are left with a political question. I'll remain agnostic without more input. To end quickly on two cases that were decided by the courts, I too think it "reasonable" to assume that term in the Fourth Amendment includes what state law requires. The Supremes didn't think so. In effect, 9-0. Locally, what at least had the appearance of a reckless police killing of an innocent man, was determined in a bench trial to (legally) not be under the circumstances of the case.
I join the cynicism and sadness voiced by this post and its first comment.