Legal Eagles Please Explain SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 Berg V Obama

US Supreme Court ^ | October 31, 2008 | Philip J. Berg,

[ckilmer]

For further research here is a google search of SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570

As well here is a search of the Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) -- which was denied by Souter.

I see a lot conflicting reports as to the meaning of these rulings. It would be helpful to know just what was denied and just what it is that constitutes a response by Dec 1, 2008.

[ckilmer]

No. 08-570
Title:
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Party name: Philip J. Berg
Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

[utahagen]

I, too, would appreciate someone’s explaining what is supposed to happen on December 5. Is it accurate that only four justices would have to conclude on December 5 that there is a debatable point in the underlying lawsuit to lead to actual arguments being heard by the court? If this is so, how soon after the conference on December 5 would the SCOTUS announce the case would be heard? Finally, when would the case be heard?

[MississippiMan]

It’s hard to be amazed by anything going on in our government anymore, but the fact that the Federal Election Commission apparently has zero interest in this issue, comes close.

A thought: Has anyone looked into the actual process of becoming a presidential candidate? Lots of not-well-funded minor candidates make it onto the ballot, so it’s obviously not a prohibitively expensive or cumbersome process. I’m just curious as to what that process is. If I, MississippiMan, decide to run for president in 2012, where do I start?

MM

[Red Steel]

Yes, only four justices have to agree for the case to go forward when they meet on the 5th Dec.:

----------------------------------------------------

No. 08A407
Title:	Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of New Jersey

Case Nos.:

(AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008	Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008	Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008	Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Leo C. Donofrio	P.O. Box 93
	East Brunswick, NJ  08816
Party name: Leo C. Donofrio

[hankbrown]

Here is how I understand this (I am a lawyer)

A petition for a writ of certiorari (cert) is a brief to the Court explaining why the Court should hear the case. In most litigation, the Supreme Court is not required to hear the case, it only takes up those cases that meet certain standards as argued in the petition for a cert writ. Generally the case must present an important constitutional issue (i.e., gun rights, abortion, school prayer, etc.) or there must be a conflict between lower appellate courts (i.e, one court says 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control laws and another says the 2nd amendment prevents gun control laws).

Very few cases that are presented through cert petitions are accepted by Court. If, however, the case is accepted, then the Court will require merit briefs on the issue from all parties and will then hold oral arguments on the issue. All of which will take months, if not longer.

Since Berg's case was thrown out by the lower court on the issue of standing (i.e., Berg did not have standing to bring the case), then all that the Court will be considering, assuming it accepts the case, will be whether the lower court was correct in finding no standing. If the Court believes that the lower court was wrong, it will send the case back to that lower case to proceed.

So, the Supreme Court will not be deciding anything having to do with Obama's birth certificate at this point. All it will be doing is (1) deciding whether to accept the case for hearing and if so, (2) whether the lower court was correct in finding that Berg had no standing.

[hankbrown]

Here is how I understand this (I am a lawyer)

I should add that the same analysis applies to the Donofrio case. His case was dismissed by Souter and refiled with Thomas. His request for an injunction to delay the election was denied and now his petition for a writ of certiorari is pending.

[Azzurri]

Yes, only four justices have to agree for the case to go forward when they meet on the 5th Dec.

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito. These guys are our only hope. If it goes forward, there is no question Obama will have to provide the BC to the full court.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Good explanaton, hankbrown... Freepers should move on. This stuff isn’t going anywhere.

[boomop1]

In other words (not being lawyer)but I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night, we are stuck with this American hating terrorist loving bastard.

[nonsporting]

So, the Supreme Court will not be deciding anything having to do with Obama's birth certificate at this point. All it will be doing is (1) deciding whether to accept the case for hearing and if so, (2) whether the lower court was correct in finding that Berg had no standing.

This may be true for the Berg case. But the Donofrio case is a different beast.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[hankbrown]

In other words (not being lawyer)but I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night, we are stuck with this American hating terrorist loving bastard.

At least for the near future -- but if the Court does decide to accept one of these cases and does find that the plaintiff had standing, then indeed the lower court will be required to accept evidence on the issue of whether there is a legitimate birth certificate.

Unfortunately, the speed at which courts act could mean that it will not be decided for several years. Because as soon as the lower court finds that Obama is not a citizen, then it will be appealed to the appellate court and then to the Supreme Court.

So don't look for a quick resolution.

[koraz]

“Good explanaton, hankbrown... Freepers should move on. This stuff isn’t going anywhere.”
************

Well, facts are stubborn things. Eventually there will be someone that does have standing (like Keyes) and the case will be heard. IMO this would be a much easier issue to deal with a president-elect rather than a president. For that reason alone I think the Supreme Court will consider this matter.

It is pretty amazing that every case has been thrown out because of lack of standing. As ugly as it is, this is a constitutional issue that really needs to be resolved.

[koraz]

I agree hankbrown but I think the Supreme Court will recognize that this needs to be resolved quickly (or they would if they had any foresight and take their pledge to uphold the Constitution seriously).

[stockpirate]

Yes only four of nine need to agree to hear the case.

SCOTUS is our last best hope for saving our republic.

[boomop1]

His high payed lawyers are working hard to prevent anything soon to happen to thwart his move to ruler and chief.

[Paige]

Berg tried to stop the election, which was not going to take place. The question now, will the Justices actually request Obama show his CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH?

Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship. “I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”

Most of all and in my ever so humble opinion, this should have never been an issue or taken this route. Seems the person running for president of the United States would know they had to be a natural born citizen and this was a given until the Democrats decided to implement a political "coup de etat". With Democrats around, there can never be any loopholes with anything.

[mc5cents]

It is pretty amazing that every case has been thrown out because of lack of standing.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Now I know the courts have these arcane "precedents" and such, but for crying out loud, this should be a no brainer, I would think any citizen of the U.S. would have standing to bring a case asking if the person about to take the oath of office for POTUS meets constitutional muster. No?

[SerafinQ]

I agree. A dismissal based on lack of standing is not just a copout, it is illegal.

All dem primary candidates are harmed becasue they lost to a potentially unqualified candidate. Likewise all presidential candidates have standing for the same reason.

All electors have standing becasue they are required to vote for a qualified candidate.

All citizens have standing because we all have our right to vote harmed if he is ineligible.

This is becoming at least a massive failure on behalf of the judicial oligarchy or at worst an out right fraud by the same.