Posted on 01/07/2009 12:55:22 PM PST by Red Steel
I think this unlikely, for several reasons.
First, Berg’s and Donofrio’s cases were denied without any comment and without a single dissent. I don’t think this case is materially different. Not does the timing matter; if they thought standing would change after the electoral college or Congress voted, they would have simply held the Petitions and ruled on them then.
Second, Neither Obama nor any of the other defendants named in any of these cases (the FEC, the DNC, etc.) has filed anything in the Supreme Court in response to any of these suits. That is not unusual: Under the Supreme Court’s rules, respondents are permitted but not required to file opposing papers, because most cases filed with the Supreme Court are denied without comment. But, if the Respondents don’t file opposition, and the Court is seriously thinking about granting the motion for a stay or the petition for certiorari, the Court will almost always request that the Respondent file something. Moreover, if a major constitutional issue is involved, the Court will always request that the Solicitor General (the DOJ’s lawyer in the Supreme Court) file something stating the Government’s position, even if the Government is not a party to the case.
It is totally unthinkable that the Supreme Court would stop Obama from taking office without requesting that he file oposing papers and without requesting that the Bush DOJ state its position. So my prediction, speaking as an appellate lawyer, is that, like all the previous motions for a stay, this one will be denied without comment by a vote of 0-9, and that the petitions for certiorari will also be denied without comment and without dissent.
Please give context to this....I hadn't heard about it.
Thanks
If you're intimating that Roberts accepted it because he was directly solicited, then you conveniently forgot about Berg's conferences for Jan 9th, which was distributed on Dec 17, and Jan 16th, which was distributed on Dec 23, by other justices, long before Roberts agreed to schedule Orly's conference. These conferences directly influenced Roberts' decision.
Both of these occur well before the inauguration, and the fate of these will impact Orly's case.
Thanks for the pings, LucyT. Though all this is fact and critical, I will be highly surprised if SCOTUS does the right thing. But keep the pings coming because there is a little part of me that still believes in miracles.
You’re welcome SisterK. If SCOTUS doesn’t uphold the Constitution, then it really is the end of the USA as we knew it.
“If SCOTUS doesn’t uphold the Constitution, then it really is the end of the USA as we knew it.”
Yes ma’am. Falling apart right in front of our eyes.
Excellent, somewhat rare anymore, analysis that shines light on areas I hadn’t seen. Thank you.
Penelopesire reported it on the Obama presser thread.
I cannot find a transcript of today’s Obama conference except on a pay website. Time.com should have one by tonight or tomorrow.
This is about the 3rd time Obama has alluded to him being eligible as president. The press has completely ignored the Obama comments on every occasion.
Obama has an modus operandi . On the eve of a court decision that it may take up the case, he blurts out a weak defense for himself.
From this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2160501/posts?page=121#121
lj: Are you saying that if a “real, non-kook, big time and/or famous lawyer” presented any of these cases, even if the cases were exactly as they are now, they’d have a better chance?
LL: The real, non-kook, big time, famous lawyers love to argue in front of the Supreme Court— it gives them great prestige, which leads to tons of lucrative work. I used to work for a very large, national firm, and they would do Supreme Court cases for free, or for a fraction of their usual fees, because of the advertising value of arguing before the Court. The fact that none of the “usual suspects” (90% of Supreme Court appeals are argued by one of maybe 10 or 12 firms) has touched any of these cases is probably seen by the Court (rightly or wrongly) as a sign that these are fringe issues.
lj: IOW, having a case heard by the Supreme Court is for a few elites, and not us common folk/non-bigshot lawyers.
Okay.
Common folks are parties to Supreme Court cases-- Ernesto Miranda was no elite-- but, by and large, the lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court are an elite among the elite. I have practiced law for 30 years, and argued dozens of appeals before many federal and state courts of appeals, and I have never argued a case in the Supreme Court and will in all likelihood never get to do so.
So somehow or other, a common folk type of person must have access to the bigshot lawyers. Sounds pretty hopeless unless one has the type of case that the ACLU likes.
To expand on my #31, the elite nature of the Supreme Court bar is not just a matter of snobbery. The Court hears only a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it, and each case it decides is going to set precedent for the whole country. They want to make sure that the lawyers who argue the cases to them are the best of the best, who won’t mess up.
.There are conservative Supreme Court advocates-- Roberts was one before he got on the Court, Ken Starr is another, and there are more. If a case presents an issue that the Court may be interested in, these lawyers will call up and practically beg you to let them argue your case (Heller for one, and Kelo, for another-- Kelo didn't come out right, but the homeowners had no trouble finding a top Supreme Court litigator).
I guess the problem that a man elected to become President may not be a natural born citizen is radioactive.
You know what you’re saying. That if a lawyer (common folk) has a case that happens to get to the Supreme Court, it only has a chance to get argued if one of the “elite lawyer” takes the case. Something is not right.
There are exceptions-- a public defender from Oregon that no one had ever heard of before got a case granted by the Supreme Court a year or two ago, and set a major precedent. But it's rare.
One of the "elite" Supreme Court law firms maintains a website about cases now before the Court; you can read it here.
OK you clarified it. If one of these Obama suits gets a hearing, the lawyers will come out of the woodwork. The case gets accepted first then the slick lawyers beg second.
No, if the case presents an issue that they think the Supreme Court will take, the slick lawyers will call when the case gets decided in the lower court, saying "are you going to appeal to the Supreme Court? We want to help." That they didn't do that in any of the Natural Born Citizen cases means that they didn't see any likelihood that any of them would be accepted by the Court.
That’s crazy. The case should be accepted on merit not if you can get a lawfirm who has argued in front of the Supreme Court.
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.