Gail Lightfoot, et al V. Debra Bowen, CA SOS (Distributed for SCOTUS Conference, Obama Suit)

US Supreme Court ^ | January 7, 2009

[Red Steel]

No. 08A524
Title:	Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of California

Case Nos.:

(S168690)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008	Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008	Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008	Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009	Application (08A524) referred to the Court.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~		~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz	26302 La Paz	(949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record	Mission Viejo, CA  92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.

[cblue55]

Please explain for us non-legal types

[jennyjenny]

Another thread mentions Orly. Are there now two?

[jennyjenny]

Oops, nevermind.

[Red Steel]

It’s the same. This posting of it came 4 minutes before the other.

[Red Steel]

It will take 4 justices who are willing to hear the case for it to move forward.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

This should clear it up.

[Red Steel]

Your comment from today's Obama presser:

Obama talking about his ‘legal authority’ to be president before he is president...LMAO!!

Obama must have gotten a heads up about this SCOTUS lawsuit against him. Like I said he's starting to sweat again. ;-)

[DrC]

This has taken the identical path as all the other suits:
a) Submitted and denied by Justice X
b) Resubmitted to Justice Y
c) Distributed (to full Court) by Justice Y for conference on Date Z.

If this is handled like all the others, on Date Z (January 23, in this case) the Court will refuse to approve a full hearing (without comment) and the case will be dead.

My understanding is that if Justice Y were to simply deny the case, there is nothing to stop it being resubmitted to each and every justice, i.e., 7 more times, before it finally died. Thus, scheduling for conference is a more expeditious way to dispose of the case, both time-wise and in terms of SC’s time and staff resources. I think what’s unusual about these BC cases is that most petitioners quit after step a).

In short, while it’s POSSIBLE that the conference scheduled on January 23 is a hopeful sign, the odds are against it. In contrast, were a conference scheduled by the FIRST justice to consider the petition, that would be a more hopeful sign. Even though the Justices differ with one another, they know each other well enough not to play games. That is, there’s no point in putting forward a case in which it’s obvious there would be a 9-0 vote against the party bringing the case (absurd example, but presumably non-controversial: suppose someone thought to restore Plessy v. Ferguson by invalidating Brown v. Board of Education—i.e., re-allow “separate but equal” schools? I don’t think even Thomas or Scalia would think that meritorious. So while they might possibly think that constraining the power of government to achieve integration is in order, a complete junking of Brown v. Board wouldn’t be the recommended path to get there).

Likewise, on a closely divided matter, I don’t think an individual justice is going to deny having the Court at least consider hearing the case in hopes of protecting his/her own possibly minority view on the issue at hand. Because they would know that eventually, the 5 justices who thought such a case had merit would inevitably find out about such duplicitous behavior and this could severely impair collegiality. I don’t want to argue the Court is completely without rancor, but unlike Senate or House, collegiality still is a far more predominant norm in SC than elsewhere in government.

[LucyT]

Ping.

[unspun]

Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/interview-orly-taitz-chief-justice.html

[real_patriotic_american]

As of now, it appears that SCOTUS will “Conference” over Obama non-citizenship cases on January 9, January 16 (twice) and January 23. One of these cases is going to pop.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244

[penelopesire]

Perhaps, but I think Obama believes he is above the law and the constitution. So many of these suits have come and gone and unless a member of the house and the senate voices objections when he is confirmed, I am afraid this is going no-where in the SC. I hope I am wrong and also that this issue continues to dog Obama until he comes clean or the truth is revealed. He is hiding something. That we know for certain.

Thanks for the ping. I remain ever hopeful.

[Red Steel]

Obama brought up that he’s legal to be president today at his press conference. He’s afraid that his dream-con may come to an end.

[real_patriotic_american]

I couldn’t agree MORE with you!

[BP2]

Instead of filing with another Justice, Dr. Orly solicited the Chief Justice to see what his opinion of it was. All other Justices had been “queried” on their stance of such a challenge and had accepted, or rejected.

This was the first time in the series of lawsuits against Obama that Chief Justice Roberts was directly solicited. And he accepted it.

Some might say that it's standard SCOTUS policy for the 3rd Justice queried to accept for Conference so as not be sent to all 9 Justices. However, based upon the circumstances, if Justice Thomas had refused, it would have sent an even clearer message to those pursuing lawsuits against Obama.

This Conference date IS three days after Inauguration, but it's believed that the SCOTUS is waiting for a true Constitutional “Cause of Action” — be that the counting of the Electoral Votes (Jan. 8) OR the Inauguration itself.

The Inauguration date on Jan. 20 is the only date noted in the Constitution tied to the new POTUS, with the exception of Election Day, the first Tuesday in November.

January 8th is really the first Congressional action that will take place with the pending President-Elect. However, even the counting of the Electoral Votes on Jan 8th in Congress is NOT a Constitutionally-mandated date.

January 8th is under USC Title 3, changed from Jan 6th by Joint Resolution back in October 2008. I believe all other dates are set by USC 3, as well: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015——000-.html

[LucyT]

Thank you, BP2. Everyone will be interested in your comment.

Ping.

[Polarik]

Berg’s conference this Friday will set the tone for things to come.

[fanfan]

Thanks.

[Rushmore Rocks]

Thanks for the ping. Getting interesting. Just hope it is fruitful, as well.