Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
All cases are not put on the discuss list (which is never made public), but all cases are put on the conference list.
Go to the Supreme Court's website, look at the docket, and try to find one case in which certiorari was denied and which is not listed as having been "circulated for conference." You won't find one.
Then it was much more likely than not that Berg's case made the 30% "discuss list" because Anderson's amicus brief filed under Berg's docket was "GRANTED" by the court.
If a case received a vote on certiorari at all (yea or nay), by default it had been placed on the discuss list and referred for conference. That's why you see that on the docket listing. The vast majority of cases are never accepted for consideration, not distributed for conference, and not voted upon.
If a case is not voted on and certiorai is not denied, how is it "rejected"?
Each individual justice may reject the cases submitted to him/her. All of the NBC cases were first denied/rejected by an individual justice.
The law allows the petitioner to resubmit to the justice of his/her choice. If that justice denies/rejects the case, the petitioner may continue until all 9 justices have denied the case.
Some aruge that these cases were sent to conference for that reason - to prevent the petitioner from exhausting all 9 decisions. (The case goes to conference where all 9 vote to deny/accept.)
This has been a good discussion. I am enjoying it. Thank you for being polite. Regards.
It would seem that cert is denied in 70% of all cases without being discussed at conference. It would also seem that if a case is put on the “discuss list” for conference, then one of the justices thought the case worthy of discussion.
Thanks BT. That’s the first time I’ve seen this addressed. I gather that Congressman Billybob’s assessment of 1/200 is a bit too low, and the average troll who says that all cases get forwarded for this informal conference (making the odds 1:1) are too high. Having the odds at 0.3 seems about right.
Now let’s process that where 1/N = 0.3. in the previous calculations.
Using that chance, N, then it’s (1/N)^5 that all of these cases were forwarded for conference. When N was 200, look where we ended up... 0.3^5 * 1/34560 = 0.00000000703125 which is ~1 in 70Billion.
_________________________________________
Previous correspondence on this topic
_________________________________________
Congressman Billybob says that 1/200 cases are not rejected outright. So have these cases made it past that filter yet? What are the chances that a case will be forwarded for conference?
Will the 3rd time be the Charm in Challenging Obama’s Eligibility?
Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:56:12 PM · 88 of 91
Congressman Billybob to Kevmo
No, all cases referred to the Court are NOT conferenced. To the contrary, 99.5% are rejected without conferences. Plus, only cases that are briefed and argued are actually confedrenced.
Requests for Emergency Relief are “referred” to the other Justices when the ONE Justice who has the case things that relief MIGHT be appropriate. I’ve talked about this process for about four months, now.
Congressman Billybob
The odds have increased even more. The Lightfoot case was Distributed for Conference today by Roberts. #5.
***Yikes. That’s (1/200)^5, which is a 1 in 320Billion chance. When you combine that with the odds that the fake CoLB posted by the nom de plume “hayIBaPhorgerie” has the same time of birth as zer0bama.which is 1/34560 that 2 people would be born at 7:24pm. Now the odds are about 1 in a genuine QUADRILLION, or a thousand trillions. And yet, we’re all just a bunch of kooky conspiracy theorists. Is Judge Roberts a conspiracy theorist?
Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen
Monday, January 12, 2009 6:51:42 PM · 510 of 686
Congressman Billybob to Kevmo
Good analysis. The issue is beating all kinds of odds against it. That means a better chance of victory, but it doesn’t create or guarantee victory.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, “The Silence of Snow”
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America’s Owner’s Manual, here.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies
To: mlo; MHGinTN; hoosiermama; Jim Robinson; Congressman Billybob
Credibility is exactly the point.
***Then let us address it. Hoosiermama’s dad was an appellate lawyer. So is congressman billybob. There are a few lawyers here on FR that could address this issue. It’s very simple. What is the threshold of credibility for an issue? When is it no longer the purview of Tinfoil Hat Conspiracists? When an issue has 6 concurrent cases before the SCOTUS, has been forwarded for conference 5 times, and there are 10 MORE cases winding their way through the court system, does that meet the threshold? Chemtrails, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Flight 800, none of those issues made it this far. The Monica Lewinsky thing did.
We’re constantly told that we are tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists. My counter argument is that the issue has been forwarded for conference 5 times, twice in Berg’s case. I would like to know how rare that is, or if it really is “just procedure”. Congressman Billybob says that 1/200 cases are not rejected outright. So have these cases made it past that filter yet? What are the chances that a case will be forwarded for conference?
Using that chance, N, then it’s (1/N)^5 that all of these cases were forwarded for conference. When N was 200, look where we ended up...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2160501/posts
“The fact that these lawsuits have been forwarded for conference 4 times is a 1 in 1.6Billion chance.”
The odds have increased even more. The Lightfoot case was Distributed for Conference today by Roberts. #5.
***Yikes. That’s (1/200)^5, which is a 1 in 320Billion chance. When you combine that with the odds that the fake CoLB posted by the nom de plume “hayIBaPhorgerie” has the same time of birth as zer0bama.which is 1/34560 that 2 people would be born at 7:24pm. Now the odds are about 1 in a genuine QUADRILLION, or a thousand trillions. And yet, we’re all just a bunch of kooky conspiracy theorists. Is Judge Roberts a conspiracy theorist?
505 posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 6:42:30 PM by Kevmo ( It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I believe this is the procedure for stays.
That's not what it says.
"Furthermore, conference discussions and votes on certiorari do not take place for the overwhelming majority of those cases because they are never selected for discussion by any justice."
It says "discussions and votes" do not take place for all of them, not that they aren't put on the conference list.
meant to ping you to this as well... I hope I didn’t miss anyone else.
What you are describing is the procedure for motions, under Supreme Court Rule 22. A request for the Court to hear a case is made via a petition for certiorari, which is always acted upon by the full Court, under Supreme Court Rule 15.5.
You need to read Anderson's brief to understand the reasoning behind that. When he filed his brief he opened it with a motion that the Supreme Court rule that required 10 days notice to all parties before the filing of an amicus brief be waived in his case. That is the motion that the Court granted and allowed the brief to be filed. They then promptly sent the matter back to the 3rd Circuit where it belonged.
Read the document at the source provided. It does say that.
Yes, you are correct about the motions/stays. My mistake on that one.
However, the full court does not vote on each and every writ of certiorari submitted to them. By not being selected for consideration (conference & discuss list), the cert is “automatically denied.”
Sourced from same document as previous post.
In that case, you should be able to find one case on the Supreme Court's docket in which certiorari was denied and the docket does not say "circulated for conference." Look-- you won't find one.
That’s not what the Supreme Court Rules (link in post #691) say.
The Court makes a significant and early cut before voting on certiorari, though it is largely unexplained by the literature on Supreme Court agenda setting.
[15.]5. The Clerk will distribute the petition to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if no waiver or brief in opposition is filed, upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing. If a brief in opposition is timely filed, the Clerk will distribute the petition, brief in opposition, and any reply brief to the Court for its consideration no less than 10 days after the brief in opposition is filed.
Where do you see that all petitions for writs of certiorari are acted/voted upon by the full court?
The part where it says "the Clerk will distribute the petition, brief in opposition, and any reply brief to the Court for its consideration."
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.