It could also mean that the Obama reply brief raised some issues not in the original motion and Carter decided that Taitz was entitled to an opportunity to respond to a new argument.
It did. The defense response referred to the Rhodes v. MacDonald decision in Georgia, which had not been handed down prior to Taitz filing her reply. Taitz is entitled to offer a rebuttle to that.
I believe the defendant also, subsequently, raised the issue of Quo Warranto being the only means by which Barry could be challenged/removed.
Yes, that is a possibility, too. Generally, the moving papers should contain all the grounds for the motion, and new arguments should not be raised in a reply brief.
The arguments were pretty arrogant slapping this Marine judge’s face, saying: “Hey you little snake judge, who do you think you are, get out of OUR business”???