Replies

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.

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.

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?

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.