Skip to comments.Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)
Posted on 11/08/2010 12:57:34 PM PST by rxsid
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism.
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010
Attorney Apuzzo's blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
"Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)"
does that mean the full court is going to discuss granting cert?
They’re just deciding how to say, “No”, again, with a straight face.
Yes, and if it goes further, Obama and the Dems would be laying bricks.
When will we find out?
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
What does this really mean? You said above 4 votes. Did 4 of the Standing court justices vote to move it to Conference status?
Does that mean it goes on a list for a future hearing? Please explain to us Tea Party un-enlightended folks.
Obama has amended the US Constitution without the legal process.
The answer is no for cases to go to conference.
It takes four of the SCOTUS critters to vote yes to hear the case.
The days grow short.
This is starting to get interesting...
What happens if 2 of the SCOTUS justices have to recuse themselves because they were themselves appointed by the defendant in question?
Can they be forced to recuse themselves? Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?
So the waiver of right to respond means the federal government, or in this case, Barry’s lawyers, have granted every statement of fact in the filing, and has no right to counter any statement within it, nor counter the centori.
I’m seeing a split decision here, with the court likely finding that the option of citizenship is one that has to be exercised, and one’s American citizenship can’t be revoked by an outside authority, nor does having an option revoke citizenship. A joined majority will further declare that the SCOTUS is not the arbritor of presidential elections and toss the whole bomb into the lap of Congress.
A minority will likely feel that this is entirely a waste of time, and another minority will think that it is up to the Electoral College to verify documents before voting for president, and yet another minority (mixed) will encourage the release of the documents.
Every cert. petition filed with the Court is listed for a conference. There are often 100 or more cases listed for each conference. Not all are actually discussed; prior to the conference, each Justice privately circulates a list of cases that they think should be discussed. If a case is not listed by any of the 9 justices, it is not discussed and an order comes down saying the petition for cert. is denied. Those lists are not made public, so we have no way to know if a case is actually "discussed."
Not the way it works at the SCOTUS level. Filing an opposition is optional. Most petitions are not opposed (because only a tiny percentage are granted). If the Court is considering granting certiorari, and the respondent didn't file opposition, the Court will request a response before taking a vote.
Laying bricks like a hen lays eggs would serve them right, but I can also see some Dems cast out and bricklaying for the unions as ex-cons.
I don’t know if it would change the 4 votes needed if 2 of the SCOTUS jurists recuse themselves from the case. And I don’t think Sotomayor or Kagan can be made to remove themselves from the case.
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.