[Mr Rogers]

“The Supreme Court plans to meet Friday to decide whether to hear a case that could determine whether President-elect Barack Obama ever becomes the nation’s president.

Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the judges’ conference.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/05/court-to-weigh-question-about-obama-citizenship/

If 4 justices agreed to hear it, the case would have gone to trial. Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case. It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...

[Safrguns]

>>> Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case. It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...

It was more important to them that they not appear to be interjecting their power into a national election.

I can see where even Justice Thomas could effectively argue that they had no choice but to let things play out in the legislature where the constitution requires it to be.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the judges’ conference.”

Petitions to hear cases are not "picked up" or denied by one Justice-- they all go to a full conference. What Souter and Thomas both denied was a motion by Donofrio for a stay of Obama's inauguration pending the court's conference (motions for stays are initially decided by one Justice).

If 4 justices agreed to hear it, the case would have gone to trial.

Not to "trial"-- there are no "trials" in the Supreme Court-- but to a full briefing, followed by an oral argument before the Court.

Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case.

There were no dissents recorded to the denial of certiorari, so the likelihood is that zero justices wanted to hear it.

It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...

That is exactly how I interpret the Supreme Court's refusal to hear at least 7 Obama eligibility cases without a single recorded dissent, coupled with the lower courts' dismissals of over 60 such cases, and the appellate courts' affirmances of those dismissals..

[BP2]

>If 4 justices agreed to hear it, the case would have gone to trial. Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case. It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...

Only in your pea brain, Mr Rogers.

Political Question ... does that term even mean anything to you?

Have you a clue? REALLY?!

The High Court Justices of the Judicial Branch's Supreme Court are understandably VERY reluctant to stand up and say "NO" to the candidates of a Presidential election, and the Executive Branch of the winner thereafter. The stakes are VERY high and have FAR-REACHING consequences.

Where were you in 2000, when for more than a month, there was NO clear-cut Presidential winner? Three of the SCOTUS Justices in the infamous December 12th SCOTUS decision actually deemed that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution! Believe me ... those memories are quite indelible in the minds of the SCOTUS Justices, especially those benching in 2000.

Considering the Democratic rancor emanating after the SCOTUS's per curiam ruling on Bush v. Gore, preceding Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, I'm surprised the concept of the SCOTUS' reluctance to rule against the Eligibility of a SITTING Executive is lost on you.