Good advice!
Posted on 10/31/2008 9:43:51 AM PDT by nametrader
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
(Excerpt) Read more at origin.www.supremecourtus.gov ...
[edit] Federal courts In the United States, certiorari is the writ that an appellate court issues to a lower court in order to review its judgment for legal error and review, where no appeal is available as a matter of right. Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right; therefore, a party who wants that court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. If the Court grants the petition (see Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States), the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument.
Four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four." The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari (approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but just 80 to 150 are typically granted), because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important (especially cases involving deep constitutional questions) to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool.
The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court has found anything wrong with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that four of the Justices think that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant the full Court reviewing the case and the lower court's action. Conversely, the legal effect of the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court's decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.
Certiorari is sometimes informally referred to as cert, and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as certworthy. One situation where the Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari is when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled different ways in similar situations, and the Supreme Court wants to resolve that "circuit split" about how the law is supposed to apply to that similar kind of situation. Issues of this type are often called "percolating issues."
Cert. granted sub nom is an abbreviation of the legal phrase "certiorari granted sub nomen", meaning "judicial review granted, under name", indicating that a petition for certiorari of a case has been granted, but that the court granting certiorari is hearing the case under a different name than the one that subordinate courts heard it. For example, the case of District of Columbia v. Heller was known as Parker v. District of Columbia in the court below.
My gut says this is radioactive. After the lies of FL2000, they won’t touch this.
Assuming he's 'elected', all of us with McCain/Palin signs should be armed ... the riots (especially in the cities) will be Watts times 10.
I’ll be carrying in my own house!
If the SCOTUS tosses this and Obama wins, We need to send ONE MILLION PEOPLE TO WASHINGTON, blocking Obama’s inauguration, Demanding that he show the vault copy of his birth certificate before he can proceed!!
I disagree. Chief Justice Roberts is no wuss. :)
Will you CUT THIS CRAP OUT?? Since when does SCOTUS respond one day after filing and on a weekend??
Good advice!
Given that the Court has beeen taking broadsides from all quarters of the die-hard Goreites for eight years for supposedly having stolen the 2000 election, I doubt they relish jumping into that cesspool again.
you really think this could go somewhere?
What the point in question was, the Supremes won't hear the case because they don't want to go through '00 again. That criteria is not in play, imo.
Whether Berg will get his day in court? I don't know. It *is* a Constitutional question, after all.
Did you forget about NOVEMBER?
Since what happened in Ohio a week ago...one day service.
Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
I still see that Berg has a case on the docket and is expected to have a response on December 1st 2008
Maybe this is for a diferent filing.
Yes - Berg apparently filed in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court. This is from the Third Circuit part of the case. AND, it only addresses the emergency motion to stay the election, not the appeal itself.
Yes - Berg apparently filed in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court. This is from the Third Circuit part of the case. AND, it only addresses the emergency motion to stay the election, not the appeal itself.
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.