[Non-Sequitur]

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.

[SeaHawkFan]

The Rhodes decision is not binding on Judge Carter, nor any other U.S. District Court Judge in the country.