You said — “Star Traveler, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue by writing six pages of gibberish in hopes of confusing someone, SCOTUS has not, repeat, not thrown out the cases. They will meet January 9, 2009 and again January 16, 2009.”
I didn’t say they threw out the cases. It was denied for the injunction. It’s still to be determined whether they will even “hear” the case for Berg’s “standing”.
Furthermore, the case with the retired officer is speculative, in that any of the information presented, has not been confirmed by any court and the Supreme Court wouldn’t be in a position to verify it. And furthermore, they’ve already indicated a reluctance to interfere with the election by refusing to order an “injunction” — so they are unlikely by the same thinking to interfere with an injunction with this retired officer — much less the fact that they’ll probably think that he can come back *if* he ever gets recalled (since he’s currently retired).
In addition — even if Berg gets all he wanted — nothing happens except that Berg goes back to the lower court and simply starts all over again (i.e., he gets a hearing from that court and then the court decides for him or against him). And Berg is still no closer to stopping anything that Obama does.
And if this isn’t about stopping Obama, I don’t know what it’s about, then... LOL...
The way to stop Obama is to get those state laws in place that prevents this kind of thing happening in the next presidential election...
On January 9, now that the electoral process is over, the Supreme Court has scheduled a conference to consider Berg's writ of certiori, at which time they will agree to hear his appeal of the lower court's decision that denied his injunction to stay the electoral process because Obama is not Constitutionally-qualified to serve as President, thus paving the way for them to also agree to hear Berg's injunction to stay the electoral process until Obama proves that he is qualified, when they meet again on January 16, because both fall directly under part (c) of its Rule 10:
"(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court."
The situation is clearly "an important question of federal law." And, although this will be the second time the Court has visited presidential elections, this will be the first time that SCOTUS will have been presented with a situation where a President-Elect may not be Constitutionally qualified to serve as President. Therefore, there are no "conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court."
I'm sure that the justices are rethinking what happened in 2000, and if this can happen once, it could happen again. There is no way that SCOTUS can see their decision as being anything but important, historic, and precedence-setting in interpretation of federal law and the Constitution itself. In other words, they will not pass on it.
The 2008 election has raised other, new constitutional questions which the Court feels obliged to answer, such as reaffirming the meaning of the natural-born clause, who has standing to challenge a candidate for President, and who has the responsibility for properly vetting a candidate, for starters.
If you are wondering whether at least four of the justices feel that the gravity of the issue warrants consideration by America's "Court of Last Resort" the answer is, "You bet your bippy it does."