Berg filed one injunction to stay the electoral process until Obama has proven his eligibility to the Court. The injunction pertains to the three stages of the process: (1) certifying electors, (2) Electors voting, and (3) House counting and validating the votes.
The first conference scheduled by SCOTUS is the writ of certiori that Berg filed to get the SCOTUS to consider the injunction and the Constitutional questions raised, as something extremely important and serious enough for them to consider. The second conference is about the injuction itself.
The fact that the writ conference occurs after the House vote on Jan 8, and the injunction conference occurs a week later will pose no problem for SCOTUS who can stay the inauguration until Obama produces his vault birth certificate. If Obama fails to do so, then he will be disqualified.
Yes, everyone will know about it after it happens.
“Also, could the SCOTUS review this matter and still keep the details secret and just give the public a ruling that BO is qualified ?”
To reiterate my earlier post, I’m no lawyer, but having taken 4 Con Law courses in college, I am reasonably certain that SC can DENY certiorari without ever giving an explanation of their reasoning (as they have already done with Donofrio) but IF they opt for a full hearing, then any opinion rendered must be made public so that the public can understand the reasoning behind the decision (and hence the case can serve as guidance for lower courts and/or precedent for future decisions). But whether this extends to the evidence itself (e.g., if there were competing expert claims about document authenticity), I don’t know. They would certainly have to explain why they accepted Expert A’s judgment over Expert B’s. Note that in the vast majority of cases, the SC is serving as an appellate court, so they are ruling on matters of law/constitutional interpretation, as opposed to actually assessing evidence that is introduced.
In light of HIPAA, if the SC itself did not make available supporting documents such as long form BC, I don’t know whether plaintiff would be permitted to, on grounds that for the same reason Hawaiian officials are barred from disclosing the info, release of this would constitute an invasion of privacy etc.