We are well past the "theoretical", stage of the game.
There are now multiple challenges in the courts; demanding that Obama produce a certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth. His (or the DNC's) lawyers have fought these attempts tooth and nail. There is no excuse for that. None. It is incumbent upon him to prove his eligibility, because he is the only one that can access the necessary legal documents.
The only reason that a candidate (or President Elect) would continue to fight these attempts is because he was not actually born in Hawaii or the information on the long form contradicts the information that is shown on the Certification of Live Birth ( thus proving that Obama produced a fraudulent CoLB to hoodwink the public and possibly even the Government ).
You said — “That is some of the most convoluted nonsense that I have ever read on FR.”
I’ve found that things are only “convoluted nonsense” to those who simply don’t agree. To say “convoluted nonsense” seems to be a “rhetorical device” and “tool” more than anything meaningful or substantial, actually... :-)
—
But, be that as it may, you said — “We are well past the “theoretical”, stage of the game.”
There are two “spheres” that these things are operating in — “the theoretical” (involves speculation, guesses, assertions, explanations, arguments, reasonings, intense desires, etc.) — and then — the “real” (which would involve court decisions taking specified and intended actions, things as they *happen*, accomplished and “historical” actions [like winning an election, being sworn in — after that point, actions based on assertions and no opposition stopping it], and so on).
Now, all these things posted are simply the “theoretical” because they are talk, assertions, reasonings, all “in theory” because *nothing* has happened “in real life” the way the “theoretical” is demanding.
It *becomes* real — when — an court accepts whatever evidence it deems correct and true and then *acts on it*. Then it’s “facts on the ground” from that court action.
You’re still operating in the “theoretical” and have no “real facts on the ground” that show any different.
—
You then said — “The only reason that a candidate (or President Elect) would continue to fight these attempts...”
I can think of several reasons that have nothing to do with qualifications... so, until someone finds out exactly what it says, it’s still “theoretical” and not “facts on the ground” in which you can “do something” with it.
And the “do something” is not the spinning of wheels and filing cases and searching and so on — it’s the *removal from office* or the *preventing from taking office* — that’s the *doing something* that I’m taking about and what would be “real” versus the “theoretical”...
We’re all operating in the “theoretical” — while — Obama is “creating the facts on the ground” (i.e. being sworn in for one thing...).
- Lurking Libertarian and mlo are correct that the docket entry Distributed for Conference of [date] is standard procedure and probably holds no significance. The clerk of the court makes an entry on the docket indicating when the court will likely consider the case. SCOTUS Case Distribution Schedule
- The docket entry of significance in these cases is instead Application referred to the Court. This entry does indicate that specific and purposeful action was taken by a justice. However, we do not know based on the entry itself why the justice(s) referred the case to the court for discussion at conference. This entry could indicate that the case was also put on the discuss list. This entry is usually not made in the docket until a decision has been made by the court.
"The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court's order."
- Lurking Libertarian, mlo, and I agree that the discuss lists are not made public. We have no way to know which cases have been put on the discuss lists.
- Of note is case #08-519 (not an NBC case) in which a motion for leave to file and amicus curiae was granted and the petition for writ of certiorari was denied at the same time. This is the same thing that happened with Berg's case, so it could be standard procedure.
None of these conclusions is meant to retract or negate the analyses from sources that I published earlier in this thread.
The end result is that the justices did refer the cases (applications) to the court for discussion at conference. Is that significant? You be the judge.