Posted on 12/08/2008 11:28:55 AM PST by LongIslandConservative
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
In addition to my #51, I’d also like to point out that this is a good example of the difference between libs and conservatives. The conservative almost always distribute urgent requests (such as stay requests) to all the justices to vote on. However, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, while often referring matters to the full Court, do take things into their own hands much more often.
Also, I find it interesting that there was no comment regarding denial of cert (not the same as a dissent) from any of the conservatives. In highly political cases, Justice Stevens often likes to issue such things, pointing out the obvious fact that denial is not a ruling on the merits. I remember him doing this in the highly political issue (and, imo, nonjusticiable) of recess appointments by President Bush.
Again, conservatives have class, libs don’t.
“Otherwise, why would Thomas bring it forward, and then not vote for it?”
- - -
Because that is standard procedure when an application is denied by the first Justice and then presented to a second Justice. It has nothing to do with merits of argument or case. It’s just what they do as standard procedure. You can check this yourself by browsing through the SCOTUS Docket.
See page 4 of http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf (found on Donofrio’s site):
“If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a zetitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application. ***In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.***”
Again, we have no idea how the conference went. Noted dissents from denial or notes saying that “Justice ___ would grant cert” are not the same thing as a justice supporting cert in private conference.
We need more Trolls to post and then be Zotted.
The Zer0Bots were not prepared for this news.
Their think tanks are being soberized from their premature celebrations and will have new mantras on this action after they sober up.
True .. Donofrio has a court clerk “issue” as well as Socialist Republic of NJ issues.
Ping us when ABCNNBCBS and the dying dinosaur fishwraps like the LA Slimes, Chicago Tribune, NY Slimes and the Compost carry this news.
Even if they accept it Dec. 12, there certainly wont be any headway by Dec. 15. The electors votes will be cast for Obama and Biden, and that means Biden would be sworn in as president if Barack Obama were found unqualified, yes?
***
NOT necessarily ...
Assuming Obama was DQ’d, it ALSO depends on WHEN he was DQ’d.
FIRST - a Primer
There are 538 Electors in the Electoral College. However, there are MORE than 538 POSSIBLE Electors during the General Election.
FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, LET US SUPPOSE THAT ONLY MCCAIN AND OBAMA WERE RUNNING FOR POTUS ...
McCain had 538 Electors pledged to him, if elected and Obama had 538 Electors. THESE WERE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS. Therefore, there were 1076 POSSIBLE Electors.
As currently stands, Obama will win in the Electoral College 365-173, assuming everyone votes as they have pledged.
NOW:
HERE IS WHERE IT GETS MESSY ...
Suppose Obama was DQd by SCOTUS BEFORE the Electoral Vote count on 06 January - what would happen? ANY NUMBER OF THINGS ...
THIS could happen:
1. IN ALL STATES, if a candidate is DQd, they remove him from the ballot results - AS IF HE HAD NEVER BEEN ON THE BALLOT.
Therefore, through the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine, HIS Electors would be removed from the Electoral College AND the runner-ups Electors would be installed.
In this case, McCain would then win 538-0, assuming the Electors voted as they had pledged.
What about Biden? WHO KNOWS?
Biden could make a claim that he was validly elected and IF SCOTUS ruled so, then he would be elected VP 365-173, assuming the Electors voted as they had pledged.
In this case, Obama/Biden Electors WHO WERE NOT ALLOWED to vote for Obama WOULD be allowed to vote for Biden.
McCains additional Electors who voted for POTUS would sit the VP vote out.
However, OTOH, if Biden was DQd by SCOTUS because he ran as a TICKET with Obama, McCains additional Electors WOULD vote for VP (Obama/Bidens WOULD NOT vote) and Palin would be VP 538-0.
CONFUSING? - YOU BETCHA!!!
BTW: THIS IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION - IT WOULD BE EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL ORDERED BY SCOTUS. BUT, IT WOULD ELIMINATE AN ELECTION THAT WAS BASD UPON THE PERPETRATION OF A FRAUD. THIS IS AN UNLIKELY SCENARIO.
OR THIS could happen:
2. If Obama was DQd, SCOTUS could eliminate the Electoral College vote for this election - since it was tainted. The vote would then go to the House of Representatives for POTUS. This is per the 12th Amendment AND IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
The House then votes as State delegations (1 state, 1 vote), and a simple majority wins.
HOWEVER, per the 12th Amendment, the House can ONLY VOTE FROM A LIST OF NO MORE THAN 3 candidates who received electoral votes. McCain is the ONLY one on the list. McCain wins 50-0.
As for VP:
The Senate votes for VP (1 Senator, 1 vote), and a simple majority wins. This is per the 12th Amendment AND IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Senate votes from a list of the 2 top candidates (Biden and Palin) who received electoral votes. Biden wins something like 58-42. THIS IS THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO.
OR THIS could happen:
3. SCOTUS orders a new election. THIS IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION - IT WOULD BE EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL. THIS IS AN UNLIKELY SCENARIO.
THE LIKELYHOOD, IF OBAMA WERE DQ’D IS 2, THEN 3, THEN 1, ABOVE.
IF Obama was DQ’d AFTER the Electoral College vote on 06 January:
Per the 20th Amendment, the VP-Elect will become “acting” President on 20 January until a new President has qualified ...
How does the new President qualify? Presumably, SCOTUS rules the Electoral College vote invalid and throws it to the House of Representatives and the Senate, as in #2, above. Or, SCOTUS orders a new election.
IF Obama was DQ’d AFTER Inauguration, he MIGHT be declared NOT to have held the office in the first place - due to his ineligibility. IN THAT CASE, REFER TO 1, 2, AND 3, ABOVE ...
OTHERWISE:
Obama would have to be impeached, Biden would be President - AT LEAST INITIALLY under the 25th Amendment, Biden would nominate a new VP. Senate would confirm. Or SCOTUS could order a new election.
SIMPLE, HUH?
I hope you are right. I think Scalia and Thomas probably get it based on the Constitution. We have seen how they have decided cases in the past. I just hope Alito and Roberts are made of the same stuff and then Kennedy will also realize how serious this issue is. The electorate has been defrauded.
Literally laughing out loud(LOL).
I might be over-analyzing. I think more than 270 Obama electors are required by State law in each State to vote for Obama. IOW, they have to vote for him even though he would be ineligible. A conundrum.
On 3rd thought, in that case, we’d probably have Acting President Biden.
As you noted, so much of his past life has been hidden or spiked.
Hiding your past life is very typical of criminals and pyscopaths.
As you noted, so much of his past life has been hidden or spiked.
Hiding your past life is very typical of criminals and pyscopaths.
The Court isn’t going to touch this with a ten-foot-pole. The fact that we don’t know how the private conference went does not mean there is any realistic chance of them hearing it.
These threads are certainly the the troll magnet.
Thanks.
I figured that most of us who just want an answer to Zer0’s real history needed a laugh.
DO you know Bill Anderson?
Another keyboard commando/troll speaks.
LOL!
Um, get a grip. I’ve been here a heck of a lot longer than you. I have doubts about Obama’s BC, but that doesn’t mean I think the Court will hear anything to do with this issue. It’s a political issue the Court isn’t going to touch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.