Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: David; Triple
" I will say that the Supreme Court appointments open a new avenue of possible challenge. A Supreme Court Justice must be appointed by a "President". So any litigant before the court would have a position from which to challenge the ability of these two ladies he has apponted to sit on a panel.

When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.

Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case--then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified. "

Wouldn't the all elusive "standing" need to be found in order to get to discovery in order to determine the claim that they (Barry's SCOTUS picks) are not qualified? That brings the issue right back to where we are now. No?

44 posted on 08/31/2010 1:45:48 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: rxsid; LucyT
Wouldn't the all elusive "standing" need to be found in order to get to discovery in order to determine the claim that they (Barry's SCOTUS picks) are not qualified? That brings the issue right back to where we are now. No?

That's the point of my careful description of how the issue would come up--in each of those cases, the person or party raising the issue would by definition have standing.

85 posted on 09/01/2010 9:09:49 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson