Posted on 03/21/2016 5:40:49 AM PDT by PJBankard
Thanks for the news.
Not necessarily. I expect it to be heard.
This is exactly how dad had told me it should have been years ago with O
(Hopefully he’s directing this from above — he was such a constitutionalist and so concerned about how it was going )
Only the SCOTUS has the power to settle law directly from the constitution. Do not expect them to rule (but they will accept the case) until after the election. This will leave TC eligibility in question and bump him out until at least the next four years.
Hearing and ruling will be after next president appoints Justice.
“the wheels of justice moves slowly!”
This is true, but if they approve of the outcome below, they generally don't take the case. They didn't take the homo marriage case when offered, as long as the court below found homo marriage in the constitution.
As long as status quo persists (allow parties to assert that unqualified candidates are NBC), SCOTUS is happy as a clam. If status quo is disrupted, they will have a reason to step in.
Two of the cases that came before them were tabled. Dad told me the proper term but I’ve forgotten. He knew I knew R doc order so related it to that.
His observation was that there had not been a case with lroper defendant, plaintiff and premise before the court. One of the ideal case he projected is exacta fly like this. Filed in state court challenging eligibility.
I would print off each case as they became available and we used them for his bedtime reading and my instruction time.
Dad had actually written down the finding of Gore/bush before the rummy and listed the correct VCP it would be settled and who would vote how.
I am optimistic!
"Cert. denied." All of the Obama cases were fully settled by the time the petitions to SCOTUS were filed. SCOTUS has a purely volitional role in this type of case, it has no obligation to take a case that is fully and finally settled; with "fully and finally settled" being attached by conducting a trial and one appeal.
That would be true if a person was denied ballot access, too. There is an Indiana Law Review article that summarized state election cases on presidential races, and the decisions have been on both sides, with some cases upholding access, others upholding denial of access.
I do agree that this is an ideal case - but I reject the proposition that SCOTUS cares about the constitution being upheld. Is is not concerned with except as "cover" for outcome-based rule-making. As long as the courts below get the "right" outcome, SCOTUS has no interest in the issue.
This will fall under the initial care of which jurist?
What jurisdiction is PA?
I don't know, but I think the "single justice" rule only pertains when the petition is an "emergency" seeking an immediate order.
Petitions for cert are discussed by the entire court, and each week it is in session, SCOTUS publishes a list of cases taken and rejected. If four SCOTUS justices agree to take the case, cert is granted.
With the usual flow of elections being unimpeded (allowing unqualified candidates to achieve a high degree of electoral success), there is zero pressure for SCOTUS to take the case.
The rule of law is secondary, always.
Sorry got interrupted before finished
As I would read each case dad would first examine the plaintiff/defense Tell me what was incorrect and why. Then he would discuss which court and next give me details on each premise. What was assumed , what was incorrect what had merit
He would then explain why the SCOTUS had to turn each down.
All except those two. One was held by Thomas the other by Scalia IIRC. It was a move used very seldom. Not a direct turndown like Cert denied
Of course he told me the history of last time used and the history of standing and the history of initial decision coming directly from the constitution. Sure wish I had the photographic memory he did
It kept his mind agile. Wish I had taped those conversations.
Each case is first previewed by a jurist who makes a recommendation on the certain denied It was the two cases I mentioned that were held before it could be denied.
If I still had my old computer I could tell you which two.
Dad explained it was a common practice when similar cases were coming before the court to make one decision effecting all of them.
Thus eliminating numerous hearing and hearing one large argument encompassing all.
The Elliott v. Cruz case fits the "cert. denied" pattern, just by the procedure below.
Marbury v. Madison is about SCOTUS jurisdiction, and the Court found that it did not have the power to hear the case, as presented.
I figure Elliott will petition for cert. It isn't all that expensive.
Alito has Pennsylvania.
Time will tell
Will see how much influence Scalia and dad have from above!
Keep me posted.
Alito. Trumps sister’s colleague. The one who she spoke in front of his confirmation hearing in the affirmative. Who have been “friends for years”
Do you think this is coincidence? I don’t
With another piece of information I am privy to this may be part of a much much bigger production
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.