Replies

The plaintiff requests the conference of the Supreme Court Justice of his choice - in this case, Justice Kennedy first, and then Chief Justice Roberts.

Why C.J. John Roberts? And why Justice Anthony Kennedy before him? It was Atty. Orly Taitz who directed the plaint to these two Supreme Court Justices. One or the other will have to be on board, along with Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, for the case to proceed to oral arguments. If both had refused, it would have been pointless to petition Justice Scalia, Thomas, or Alito to bring up Noonan et al v. Bowen, only for it to be denied in conference. Better that the case be quietly ignored by two than publicly denied by six.

But for Noonan et al to win, both C.J. Roberts and Justice Kennedy must rule for the plaintiffs. So it makes sense to address the plaint to the two Justices in the balance, eliciting their support in order to win them over.

@Venturer wrote, "Obama owns 5 votes on the court. We all know that." No, not all of us "know" that, as is evidenced by the old saw, "The Constitution means whatever Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy says it means on any given day." Justice Kennedy is not a conservative like Justice Scalia, but he is no Justice Ginsburg either. He is the swing vote on the Court. Remember, it was Justice Kennedy who voted against the Unaffordable Obamacare Act, and it was C.J. Roberts who caved.

Keep praying and faint not - keep fasting and give up not! Remember... even the American Revolution was only won at the last hour, and that only because bad weather prevented Gen. Cornwallis' escape by sea. Even the salvation of the world, dead in trespasses and sin, seemed to be a lost cause, with the Savior crucified, dead, and buried, and His disciples scattering - until God, the Father and the Holy Spirit, returned life to its Author, Life Himself. God specializes in raising the dead, even the dead country, when it is most obviously beyond the power of man to do so.

Folks appear to be confused about Noonan v Bowen. First, and most importantly, this is NOT an appeal of a lawsuit to the Supreme Court. It is an Application for a Stay. Please take a look at the actual Supreme Court Docket:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

Most folks are familiar with the Supreme Court issuing Stays of Execution in capital murder cases. The stay being requested in Noonan v Bowen is to stop the certification of California’s Electoral votes until the California Secretary of State has vetted Barack Obama. Of course, the problem with that is that the California Electoral votes have already been certified. Granting Ms. Taitz’s application for a stay now would be like granting a stay of execution after the prisoner has already been executed.
The reason that this application went to Justice Kennedy first is because it is a California application and Justice Kennedy is the regional Supreme Court Justice for California, each of the justices handles applications from a different region of the nation.
Once the regional Justice has rejected an application, the Respondee has the option of submitting it to each of the other Justices, but usually a denied application is submitted secondly to the Chief Justice who then submits it to the full Court for a Friday Justices’ Conference.
Unlike a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (a request to have the full court rule of an appeal) an application for a stay or an injunction requires the approval of five Justices in order to be granted. Writs of Certiorari require four Justices’ concurrence.