Skip to comments.
Breaking: Dr. Orly v Obama (Lightfoot v Bowen) - Accepted for Conference
US Supreme Court ^
| 1/7/08
| US Supreme Court
Posted on 01/07/2009 12:59:18 PM PST by BP2
| No. 08A524 |
|
| Title: |
| Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants |
| v. |
| Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State |
|
| Docketed: |
|
| Lower Ct: |
Supreme Court of California |
| ~~~Date~~~ |
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Dec 12 2008 |
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
| Dec 17 2008 |
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy. |
| Dec 29 2008 |
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice. |
| Jan 7 2009 |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009. |
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; constitution; eligibility; inauguration; obama; obamacon; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Interesting... The Chief Justice didn't have to accept it...
1
posted on
01/07/2009 12:59:19 PM PST
by
BP2
To: BP2
Which means what, exactly?...........
2
posted on
01/07/2009 1:01:13 PM PST
by
Red Badger
(I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
To: BP2
3
posted on
01/07/2009 1:02:06 PM PST
by
mnehring
To: STARWISE
4
posted on
01/07/2009 1:02:51 PM PST
by
Faith
To: BP2
3 days after inauguration.
5
posted on
01/07/2009 1:03:26 PM PST
by
Cooter
To: BP2
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009
After the fact there....
6
posted on
01/07/2009 1:04:41 PM PST
by
Sybeck1
(Million Minuteman March (Spring 2009))
To: BP2
Based on past history (especially with Donofrio's docket), sometimes the electronic docket interface isn't immediately, nor in parallel, updated with reality.
But, who knows -- maybe your observation is correct.
Either way, it's going to Conference.
-Phil
7
posted on
01/07/2009 1:05:44 PM PST
by
Phil_GA
(http://www.therightsideoflife.com)
To: All
8
posted on
01/07/2009 1:08:07 PM PST
by
09Patriot
(I am a MILITANT Conservative, compassionate conservatism got us NOWHERE)
To: Red Badger
Hopefully it means that Obama will have to show his BC soon.
To: BP2
Is this the time to bombard the SCOTUS with pleas for them to make the Bamster produce a COLB?
A campaign started by two local radio jocks here in CA has caused the Governator to veto a fraudulent tax hike the dems were trying to impose.
To: BP2
It's one thing to rule a President-Elect ineligible.
It's a very different matter for one branch of Government to rule the head of another branch invalid.
11
posted on
01/07/2009 1:14:41 PM PST
by
AU72
To: BP2
So now Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas has referred to Conference. That leaves Alito as the only unknown.
Kennedy has denied more than once.
To: Red Badger
Instead of filing with another Justice, Dr. Orly solicited the Chief Justice to see what his opinion of it was. All other Justices had been "queried" on their stance of such a challenge and had accepted, or rejected.
This was the first time in the series of lawsuits against Obama that Chief Justice Roberts was directly solicited. And he accepted it.
Three days after Inauguration, but perhaps he's also waiting for a true "Cause of Action" -- be that the counting of the Electoral Votes OR the Inauguration itself.
The Inauguration date is the only date noted in the Constitution tied to the new POTUS. January 6th is under USC Title 3, changed to Jan 8 by Joint Resolution back in October 2008. I believe all other dates are set by USC 3, as well.
13
posted on
01/07/2009 1:15:09 PM PST
by
BP2
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
To: BP2
To: Red Badger
That Obama being impeached, Biden becomes prezident and appoints Hillary as VP. BAHAHAHAHAh
15
posted on
01/07/2009 1:15:29 PM PST
by
dblshot
To: BP2
As with all of these cases that have been sent to conference... This was sent there so it could be denied for good. It's just a way of making sure it doesn't come back.
If the CJ had not accepted it, it could have been resubmitted to another judge. But an after-conference denial is kind of the end of the line.
16
posted on
01/07/2009 1:15:41 PM PST
by
Semper911
(When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
To: AU72
It's a very different matter for one branch of Government to rule the head of another branch invalid. He's not "head" of anything yet.
17
posted on
01/07/2009 1:16:39 PM PST
by
Myrddin
To: BP2
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court
What does this mean... it was just added.?
To: Myrddin
He's not "head" of anything yet. He will be when they conference.
19
posted on
01/07/2009 1:19:19 PM PST
by
AU72
To: Myrddin
He’s Head of the Office of President-Elect!.............
20
posted on
01/07/2009 1:19:54 PM PST
by
Red Badger
(I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
