[silverleaf]

Won’t their deliberation be over who has standing to file such a suit, rather than the merits of the case itself?

“lack of standing” is what has stonewalled every petitioner to date

Will they expand upon who or what has the “standing” to demand the verification of the credentials of a candidate for the US presidency?

[madameguinot]

For the umpteenth time, what is the difference between a certificate of live birth and a birth certificate?

[trumandogz]

The Vote will be 0 to 9 and without comment.

This case will not move forward.

[calenel]

It isn’t a question of avoiding trouble for SC Justices, or taking the easy out. There’s gonna be trouble either way. I’d think having the Constitution backing up your action would be the deciding factor. But that’s just me.

[i_dont_chat]

If the Supreme Court does NOT step up to getting to the truth on this matter — then the next presential term will be DOGGED by this issue and the question will eventually render the Office of the President as inoperative.

This not NOT going away.

[gorush]

The Supremes decide what the Constitution means no matter what it says (Thank you John Adams, who packed the federal courts after his loss to Jefferson and appointed Marbury of Marbury v. Madison giving the Supremes this omnipotence. Adams, our first liberal President and the damage he did is still felt today.)

All of this, however, comports with human nature which has prevented Republics from lasting much longer than we have. More's the pity.

We live in interesting times.

[billorites]

I except Justices Souter and Ross to vote against scheduling hearings.

As to that b**ch Florence, I dunno...

[cripplecreek]

I think they need to remember that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land and overrules even the voters.

[D Rider]

It is really not that disastrous if they disqualify O. The electors have been selected from each state and they select a qualified president. Since most the electors are Demonrats, they will select Hillary.

[wtc911]

It will be a closed, secret meeting. I believe that they will punt - decide to do nothing.

[Popman]

The USA population has already decided the question

The SCOTUS will look at the briefs on Dec 5th, decide there is no way they will jump into the middle of the political fray when the people of the USA have voted and decided Barack Obama is their President.

I don't agree with that result, but that's the way it's going down

[Old Sarge]

WAIT, WAIT, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL DO!

Absolutely Nothing.

[mad_as_he$$]

The fix is already in. the Supremes will weasel out of doing anything and then they will be irrelevant.

[zarodinu]

I don’t think the justices care about public reaction to their actions. Most likely the case will be dismissed because of standing, justiciability, or merit issues. The only reason I can think of for them to take up the case, is to settle once and for all what “natural born citizen” means.

Even if they pick it up, this is little more than an academic curiosity. Obama will be sworn in regardless.

[deannadurbin]

I continue to hope for a miracle, but I wonder if America deserves one? Obama seems to be what we deserve.

[MHGinTN]

Here's the catch: this is not the only suit on this issue and several of the others are approaching this from a different enough perspective that they too will have to be dealt with in conference. The SCOTUS could end the discussions and suits by remanding the case back tot he circuit with stipulation that the candidate must reveal to the NJ election commission the proof required by the Constitution. This kicks the issue down the road and out of the SCOTUS but resolves the issue at the heart of all the other suits.

What pisses me off about that approach is the ability of Obama to then not release his college or travel records which may be proof that he has exercised dividied loaylties exploiting citizenship with other nations.

[jwalsh07]

I try not to think about it.

Thanks. :-}

[Procyon]

The technicality is the matter of standing. The justices won't even reach the merits of the case. Even if they found one of the petitioners had standing, they'd remand it back to a federal district court for an evidentiary hearing, assuming the court found it had jurisdiction to begin with. I don't see that there is enough time between now and the inauguration for the process to wind through the courts.

The matter may also be moot (too late). The electors have already been chosen and in a few days they will be casting their ballots. We are left with the gadflies filing these court cases, not serious people.

Obama doesn't have to prove he is eligible, the plaintiffs have to prove he isn't. I don't imagine in all of American history a candidate has had to present a birth certificate in order to have his name placed on the ballot.

Isn't it curious that in all 51 jurisdictions not a single clerk or secretary of state challenged Obama's eligibility? They aren't all Democrats.

Prospectively, we may need legislation to prevent this last-minute ruckus: Provide for a period well before the election to challenge a candidate's eligibility and a process of adjudication. As it stands the ultimate recourse is in the Congress, in January, to debate and vote on any objection before confirming the election of the next president.

[quadrant]

I believe that everyone who loves the United States should pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the justices of the Supreme Court to demand the truth.

[devere]

“On the other hand how does Chief Justice Roberts with his pledge to uphold the Constitution swear in a man as US President if he has doubts as to whether the man lied to the American people and is not a citizen?”

Why would John Roberts even want the job of Chief Justice under those circumstances? He is not a second-rate time server, but a brilliant man who could make a large fortune in private practice.