Replies

“Writs of Certiorari
“the rule of four.”
and

.. Standing , are arbitrary terms established for the smooth working of the judiciary system. They are not laws established by the Constitution.”

There is nothing arbitrary about how the Court operates. They are the actual real life processes by which the Supreme Court goes about its job of interpreting the Constitution.
For example, in this case, the Constitution says nothing about how to determine natural born citizen status or who should determine it. It is mute on that subject. If a justice is conservative and a “strict constructionist,” they might well decide that if the Constitution says nothing on a subject, that means that it is left to the states to decide (states’ rights under the 10th Amendment).
If a justice is liberal and believes the Constitution is a “living document” then they might go ahead and infer an interpretation in what the Founders meant to say in determining who is a “natural born citizen.” They might well vest that authority in Congress.

The persons who would be the most likely to have “standing” in this legal situation would be the people who were most directly harmed by an allegedly ineligible candidate: John McCain and Sarah Palin. But they choose not to get involved in any of these suits. The McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican Party didn’t even submit amicus (friend of the court) briefs in support of any of the legal challenges.

The persons who would be the most likely to have “standing” in this legal situation would be the people who were most directly harmed by an allegedly ineligible candidate: John McCain and Sarah Palin.
***But another candidate, Keyes, has filed lawsuits. And the ‘standing’ issue is just a smokescreen anyways. Lower courts don’t want to get involved because it’s obvious this one will get kicked up to the SCOTUS regardless of how they find, and if they find against the most likely next president there will be a lot of political hell-to-pay. So they weasel out on the ‘standing’ issue and punt.

Minor party candidates have the same standing as major party candidates in this matter.

The established principle that operates for any candidate that did not obtain in the prior cases is embodied in the phrase from previous decisions:

“capable of repetition yet evading review”

Read the decision from when I won cert in Al Hopfmann’s case about the Massachusetts 1982 senatorial primary when he was kept of the ballot against Ted Kennedy although he qualified under state law. Hopfmann v. Connelly. You could look it up.

f a justice is conservative and a “strict constructionist,” they might well decide that if the Constitution says nothing on a subject, that means that it is left to the states to decide (states’ rights under the 10th Amendment). If a justice is liberal and believes the Constitution is a “living document” then they might go ahead and infer an interpretation in what the Founders meant to say in determining who is a “natural born citizen.”

The Constitution is a Contract. It's terms mean what they meant when the contract was written, unless amended as provided for in the contract. It's up to the Courts to determine those meanings. Laws could define them for later contracts, but not retroactively for the contract that is the Constitution.

To illustrate this, would you approve of the Congress redefining "arms", "keep" or "bear" or even "infringe" as applied to the prohibition of the Second Amendment?

Strict Constructionists also insist on original *meaning*, not necessarily original intent.

There is nothing arbitrary about how the Court operates. They are the actual real life processes by which the Supreme Court goes about its job of interpreting the Constitution.

There is no conflict between them being arbitrary and being real life processes. If they are not arbitrary, then they must be in either the Constitution or the statute law, although even statute law could be arbitrary, like various age limits for drinking, driving, etc. If they are merely the rules of the Court, the Court could, change or waive them if they wishwsm and probably have in the past.

I suspect you are using a different defintion of arbitary than hoosiermama. Here are four from the American Heritage dictionary:

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.

4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

I believe she was using #3 or close to that, while you seem to be using something more like #1, with emphasis on whim and impluse.