[BP2]

In terms of standing, a BIG question is: Who is damaged?

Any citizen in theory can say that, but then any one person could upset the apple cart.

So, in theory, I’d shorten that list to either: 1) the Electors who were forced to cast their vote on Dec. 15, or 2) Presidential and/or Vice Presidential Candidates who were damaged.

SO that would involve:

- Orly’s Lightfoot case (08A524)
- Berg’s first case (08-570 — with an elector named in the Granted amicus)
- Pidgeon’s case (pending to be filed after being denied by the Washington State SC)

Standing via a Timing standpoint, I would think at this point, it would be the counting of the EC votes on Jan 8, or the actual swearing in on Jan 20.

However, I have two questions:

1) Do we yet know why Alito wasn’t at Wednesday’s SCOTUS meeting?

2) What’s wrong with this Order from the Third Circuit of Appeals regarding Berg’s case (2-08-cv-04083)?:

12/09/2008 ORDER (SCIRICA, Chief Judge and AMBRO, Circuit Judges) denying Appellant’s Motion an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal. Panel No.: ECO-16. Scirica, Authoring Judge

[BP2]

BTW, this order followed the last one:

12/10/2008 Open Document BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Brief on behalf of Philip J. Berg due on or before 01/20/2009. Appendix due on or before 01/20/2009. (CH)

[hoosiermama]

Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal. Panel No.: ECO-16.

After the fact?

[Non-Sequitur]

So, in theory, I’d shorten that list to either: 1) the Electors who were forced to cast their vote on Dec. 15, or 2) Presidential and/or Vice Presidential Candidates who were damaged.

In what way? Damages have to be real and concrete, not speculative or hypothetical. Define them.

Do we yet know why Alito wasn’t at Wednesday’s SCOTUS meeting?

Petulence? Alito's disdain for the Senate since his confirmation hearing isn't any secret.

What’s wrong with this Order from the Third Circuit of Appeals regarding Berg’s case

You mean other than the fact that the motion was denied?

[Non-Sequitur]

So, in theory, I’d shorten that list to either: 1) the Electors who were forced to cast their vote on Dec. 15, or 2) Presidential and/or Vice Presidential Candidates who were damaged.

In what way? Damages have to be real and concrete, not speculative or hypothetical. Define them.

Do we yet know why Alito wasn’t at Wednesday’s SCOTUS meeting?

Petulence? Alito's disdain for the Senate since his confirmation hearing isn't any secret.

What’s wrong with this Order from the Third Circuit of Appeals regarding Berg’s case

You mean other than the fact that the motion was denied?