Skip to comments.Berg Case: Can anyone decode the latest?
Posted on 01/12/2009 8:00:35 AM PST by dascallie
Posted on January 12, 2009 10:49:19 AM EST by seekthetruth
PLEASE GO TO PAGE 19 FOR BERG CASE AND READ. THEN EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE! WRIT DENIED BUT NOT THE REST??
BERG CASE ORDER: THE MOTION OF BILL ANDERSON FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF A AMICUS CURIAE IS GRANTED. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CENTIORARI BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS DENIED.
It looks like, to my untrained eye, that they want to gather more information, and not actually do anything until they’ve decided the case. (?)
Writ denied but not the rest?
Definition of Amicus Curiae from the Tech Law Journal:
Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits.
Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court’s decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case.
Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to “lobby” the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members.
“An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.” Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
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.
This seems like a good thing...not a dead issue to SCOTUS
It does seem unusual. What’s the point of an amicus curiae brief to a case that has been denied?
It’s really too bad they can’t just accept ONE of these cases, and then invite everyone else to join the party as amici curiae.
There are a number of issues. Where was Obama born? Were his parents every actually married? If not formally married, did they live together long enough to satisfy the criteria for common law marriage?
Was Obama adopted by Sotero? Was he a dual citizen. Did his parents relinquish his American citizenship, if he ever had it? Did Obama travel on foreign passports? Did Obama apply to college and/or law school as a foreign student?
All of these issues would appear relevant to the issue of whether he is constitutionally qualified to be president. Some of these lawsuits raise one issue, some another, but they should be brought together in one case and all considered, if only, worst case, to remove any doubts as to Obama’s qualifications.
Are you sure it wasn't a writ of CERTIORARI?
Plain language - a writ before we hear the Amicus Curiae is denied...the writ is not denied yet...just not before we hear the Amicus Curiae.
"BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE."
Are you sure it wasn't a writ of CERTIORARI?
No - it was actually written by a centaur.
Didn’t write it.
I just copied and pasted the question from another thread at FR, to see if anyone had an interpretation of this.
A crummy commercial? Son of a b%tch!
long time lurking atty here. Thought I’d register and answer.
What happened is that an Amicus Brief was already filed along with the motion to accept the filing. They did permit him to file it and then denied Cert. The reason they did that was to discourage the filer of the Amicus brief from filing another suit with the same arguments. In short, they just refused to hear the case and this particular one is over.
Hope that helped.
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2101 (e).
It’s so difficult to believe the Supreme Court is punting on this one. It seems to me it’s the straw that will break the Constitution’s back.
Thank you - I’m glad you registered. I don’t particularly like your message, but it does make sense.
Because you need to know!
The Supreme Court is not an investigative agency.
They aren't punting. There are no Constitutional consquences. There never was a case here.
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.