Deciphering the Supreme Court’s Actions

First off, I am not an attorney.  I am just trying to decipher the Supreme Court’s actions.  

Per the Supreme Court Calendar, there are only three “conference” days in January: the 9th, 16th, and 23rd.  Each of those conference days has scheduled discussion of cases challenging Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.  (9th and 16th for Berg, 23rd for Lightfoot). 

Per that same calendar, there are only four “argument” days in January: the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 21st, and there is only one non-argument session, on January 26th.

If there were to be argument heard in the SCOTUS before the Presidential inauguration, it would have to be today, tomorrow, or Wednesday.  That appears highly unlikely to happen.

When last Friday’s “Miscellaneous Order” list did not show Berg’s case being granted certiorari, it appeared unlikely that Berg’s case would be granted certiorari today.  (The observed pattern from past orders is that those granted certiorari are informed “early” with a “miscellaneous order”, while those denied are officially told the next business day). 

Today’s Order List did in fact deny certiorari to Berg. 
But it also did something else…

08-570 BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.
The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

Very curious…

While the petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, it is “before judgment”.

I interpret that to mean that the court has not judged this case yet.

AND, why would the court grant the motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, if the court was through with Berg’s case?

It appears that the court is NOT through with Berg’s case. The court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. That, to me, says that they don’t need or want to hear oral argument from Berg. But, at the same time, they are open to hearing what Bill Anderson has to say in his amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief.

And what is scheduled for conference in the Berg case on Friday the 16th? Will the court, on that date, decide as a “SUMMARY DISPOSITION” whether or not Obama is qualified to hold the office of President of the United States? If so, will their decision be released in a “Miscellaneous Order”? Or will we have to wait for the next business day, which just so happens to be Tuesday, January 20th (since Monday the 19th is the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday)?

Would the Supreme Court, on the morning of the inauguration, declare Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II) ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States?

That would certainly be “shocking” to all of the people who believe he is qualified to hold the office.

Will that happen? I don’t know. All I know for certain is that:
1) SCOTUS granted Bill Anderson’s motion to file an amicus curiae brief.
2) SCOTUS denied the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment.
3) SCOTUS will conference on the Berg case on Friday, January 16th.
4) SCOTUS will conference on the Lightfoot case on Friday, January 23rd, but that is after the inauguration.

Could Chief Justice John Roberts swear in a man who has failed to qualify to hold the office of President of the United States?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Deciphering the Supreme Court’s Actions

  1. Bob says:

    Here’s what’s happening:

    1. Berg’s case is going down to the Court of Appeals.

    2. Supreme Court has nevertheless accepted the amicus brief that, regardless of Berg, Supreme Court MUST issue a stay until the matter is resolved (either at the Court of Appeals or through one of the other actions now before the Supreme Court or Obama voluntarily withdraws for the peace of the country) because it would be catastrophic damage to USA if Obama were inaugurated and LATER determined inelligible (that is, because all actions by the Federal Government under an inelligible Obama would be void or voidable).

    3. Supreme Court currently has a Stay set for Conference on 1/16/09 and can Stay the 1/20/09 Inauguration of Obama to be replaced by the swearing in of Biden under the 20th Amendment (at least to serve as Acting President until the Obama constitutional elligibility is resolved).

    4. Alternatively, the Supreme Court can retroactively Stay (after 1/20/09) — say on 1/23/09 at its scheduled conference on the Lightfoot case — the Obama Inauguration until the eligibility issue is resolved

  2. Jax says:

    Yeah, they’re not going to do any of that.

  3. John says:

    Notice how the ever-lurking (paid?) (site-assigned?) Internet zombie robots of “mr. hopenchange” are always very quick to stomp on any real opportunity to experience meaningful hope in anything as clean and innocent as simply having the truth be known?
    –John

  4. Jax says:

    John-

    1) Lurkers are people who read, but do not post.

    2) Normally, I’d take another shot at your unnecessary verbosity, but in this case, it has caused you to come up with the idea of zombie robots, which I think we all, liberal and conservative, can agree would be AWESOME.

    3) We’re not squashing anything. You brought this upon yourselves by bringing cases before the Supreme Court which are complete BS, then twisting logic until you could convince yourselves that your suppositions, prejudices and blatant distortions of reality = A GIANT CONSPIRACY. I like to think of my role as not allowing you all to simmer in this little think tank until you twist completely off into Fantasyland.

    4) That’s PRESIDENT Hopenchange to you, pal.

  5. Ryan says:

    I’m not paid John. In fact, I have many reservations about Obama’s policies. I will criticize him as I did Bush and as I did Clinton, and as I will for every president in the future. But, unlike you, I will be objective, and will praise the things that he does right, as I did with Bush – occasionally.

    The posts on this blog are ridiculously far-fetched and quite comical. They read like The Onion sometimes. With not much on TV these days, I check in most days for some good entertainment.

    If dear Mr “IT the RP” want to delete posts, he is welcome to do so, and if he asks me not to post, I will respect that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s