Posted on 01/12/2009 8:00:35 AM PST by dascallie
Posted on January 12, 2009 10:49:19 AM EST by seekthetruth
PLEASE GO TO PAGE 19 FOR BERG CASE AND READ. THEN EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE! WRIT DENIED BUT NOT THE REST??
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html
BERG CASE ORDER: THE MOTION OF BILL ANDERSON FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF A AMICUS CURIAE IS GRANTED. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CENTIORARI BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS DENIED.
Thanks, I’ll go and check out the link you posted. :)
long time lurking atty here.
***Of all the cases filed with the SCOTUS, how many have had 2 forwarded conferences? That strikes me as very rare. Is it completely unique?
Also, I know that 99.5% of cases don’t get writ of cert, but what percentage of cases get forwarded for conference? I’ve asked around and only gotten silence on that question.
There never was a case here.
***Thanks for weighing in. For the benefit of lurkers, those of us who’ve been following the CertifiGate issue have noticed a lot of CoLB trolls such as mlo. They never seem to answer the question of why the SCOTUS has forwarded this issue 5 times for conference rather than just deny it outright. Back to your regularly scheduled trolling.
Ship has sailed. Making the birth circumstances of the President a don’t-care is just the cherry on top of an constitution-shredding parfait whipped up from things as varied as the income tax, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, direct election of Senators, etc etc etc.
***Interesting point, but there has never been a case as stark as this before the SCOTUS with respect to eligibility. Other cases where SCOTUS shreds the constitution were Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, Kelo, Separation of Church & State (you won’t find that in the constitution), and like you say, etc. etc. I perceive that this case will be the threshold event that historians look back at and say, “from this point onward, America was no longer a constitutional republic but rather an empire”, just like when Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
It’s also a logical fallacy.
***It makes me all warm & fuzzy inside to see that you are committed to avoiding logical fallacies. If we examine your recent posts on this topic, how many logical fallacies will we find emanating from you?
Good post. I’ll need to visit that site later on.
"To begin with, the Constitution itself does not even envision the names of the ultimate candidates for President even being on the ballot, but instead only the names of the candidates for elector, who are left free to choose for whom they should vote. Thus, one would not even expect to find a provision in the Constitution requiring that someone being voted on for President by the electors would first have to affirmatively prove his eligibility to anybody."
IOW....there is no provision in the Constitution that requires that any President Elect prove his eligibility.
Maybe bambi's actions do 'speak for themselves' but he doesn't have to show anything to anybody.
And that is why nothing will come of this.
What you or I may think or want matters not at all. "The Law is an ass."
For the benefit of lurkers, people who can't win an argument tend to rely on name calling.
You haven't asked me that question. It has been answered though. The court is following the quickest procedure in denying these cases. This is what denying them looks like.
A case is submitted to one justice. He denies it. It can then be submitted to another justice. That justice, to prevent it from being sent to each justice in succesion, schedules it for conference where they all deny it, and that's the end. Going to conference says nothing about the merits or the chances.
The court is following the quickest procedure in denying these cases.
***Nope. Denying them is the quickest procedure. Forwarding them for conference is the most roundabout way of denying them.
This is what denying them looks like.
***And our resident constitutional scholar disagrees with you, saying that this issue has beaten all kinds of odds stacked up against it.
A case is submitted to one justice. He denies it. It can then be submitted to another justice. That justice, to prevent it from being sent to each justice in succesion, schedules it for conference where they all deny it, and that’s the end. Going to conference says nothing about the merits or the chances.
***Take that up with Billybob, who called my approach “a good analysis”. Now... does that mean you’ll give up this line of reasoning? Or are you going to just gloss over it because you don’t like what is said? Which is it going to be? What would a troll do? What would an honorable FReeper do?
Thank you for the ping, null and void...I don’t unerstand a word of it, though.
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.