Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: voicereason

It is posted on the Supreme Court’s schedule:

No. 12A606
Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed: December 13, 2012
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S207078)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy (949) 683-5411
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Party name: Edward Noonan, et al.
Attorneys for Respondent:
Kamala Harris Attorney General (916) 445-9555
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Party name: Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State

2 posted on 01/11/2013 4:49:30 AM PST by voicereason (The RNC is the "One-night stand" you wish you could forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


10 posted on 01/11/2013 5:36:11 AM PST by phockthis ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: voicereason
For what it's worth and not sure if this even applies or is accurate in it's assessment of the procure.

Distributed for Conference at the Supreme Court of the United States

Published on October 25, 2012 by Roy I. Liebman, Esq.
Filed under Supreme Court of the United States

Every petition that is docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains on the docket, will eventually be distributed for a conference, usually held on a Friday. The date of the conference depends upon whether or not the Court is in session, in recess or on vacation. (There were 39 conferences during the 2011 Term.) Does this mean the Court will discuss each petition distributed during their conference? Absolutely not! Although this is a very closely guarded secret, I would estimate that, at best, only 20-25% of the petitions distributed for a given conference are actually discussed during that conference and few, if any, of those discussed, are granted. Those which aren’t discussed, become automatically denied.

The process is quite simple. Each week of the year, the clerk’s office distributes petitions, due for distribution to the justices’ chambers, for a conference, which is generally held, if the Court is in session, 2½ weeks later. Each chamber receives a copy of each petition. However, in 1972, the Court instituted a pooling system whereby each justice, who participates in the pool, is only responsible for his or her proportionate number of petitions distributed. Currently, eight justices participate in the pool, so his or her chambers are only responsible for 1/8th of the petitions and the 9th justice (currently Justice Alito) is responsible for reviewing all petitions distributed. For those justices participating in the pool, the petitions are read by one of the four law clerks typically found in each of the justices’ chambers. Each of them writes a memo as to each petition he or she read that summarizes the petition with a recommendation as to whether or not the petition is cert-worthy. These pool memos are then distributed to the participating justices. Prior to the conference, the Chief Justice circulates a “discuss list” containing any petitions he deems worthy of further discussion. Each justice can add to the list any petition he or she deems worthy. Very few, if any, petitions on the discuss list are granted. The remaining petitions, as I have stated, are automatically denied.

end snip, more at link

77 posted on 01/11/2013 1:39:43 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson