Posted on 12/09/2008 9:10:17 AM PST by ckilmer
When the Supreme Court denied cert to Leo Donofrio, most of us thought the issue of Barack Obama’s status as a citizen was put to rest. Not so fast, as Dave Weigel reluctantly notes. Justice Antonin Scalia has referred another lawsuit to conference covering much the same ground in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and the Birther movement has another brief reprieve:
Why is it that Justices Ginsburg and Souter have tossed junk lawsuits about Barack Obama’s citizenship, but Justices Thomas and now Scalia have wanted them read in conference? There have been two coherent lawsuits alleging that both Obama and McCain are ineligible for the presidency. …
What is the lesson that Scalia and Thomas are sending? Either they’ve reversed their views on standing, or they’re letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider. And at some point that’s doing damage to the country. Do they really want people thinking the president is illegitimate because they didn’t do like the liberal justices and reject this baseless kookery? I can’t remember, but was either Scalia or Thomas in the habit of having the court read the “Bush knocked down the twin towers!” junk lawsuits?
Indeed, as the docket report shows, Ginsburg rejected Wrotnowski two weeks ago, at least for injunctive relief. Scalia didn’t provide an injunction, but instead of following the example set by Donofrio, he referred the case to conference. That seems a little unusual, since Wrotnowski appears to plow the same ground as Donofrio, which is that Obama cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” because his father was a British subject, even though Obama was born in the US.
Hot Air readers already know our deep skepticism regarding these lawsuits. Barack Obama was born in the United States of one native-born American citizen (his mother), which should satisfy all but the bitter-enders of this election. Both Wrotnowski and Donofrio concede these points.
So why did Scalia send Wrotnowski to conference? Like Dave, I doubt that it’s to get a unanimous ruling on these challenges to Obama’s standing that will end all of the pointless legal battles. In any case, if Donofrio didn’t get four votes, there’s no reason to think that Wrotnowski will do any better — but it seems that Scalia and Thomas have made themselves the go-to guys on the court for all legal challenges to Obama’s election.
Update (AP): A commenter in Headlines speculates that they’re doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time they’re rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrio’s petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, who’s now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply won’t deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.
The only thing before the SCOTUS was whether Donofrio (and the subsequent cases) have standing. That's all that the arguments would hinge on--who can sue a state official over irregularities involving voting. Winning the case at SCOTUS would mean that the court would order the lower court to hear the case, which could then be appealed up the courts. You might get a decision out of SCOTUS on what "natural born citizen" means in three years or so if everything fast-tracks.
You might get a decision out of SCOTUS on what “natural born citizen” means in three years or so if everything fast-tracks.
***I guess that means these guys are too dumb to see a constitutional crisis when the average american sees it a mile away. It is their job, and we have very little hope that they would actually do it. That’s the way political experiments fail, when the payoff for doing your job is less than the payoff for not doing it.
Star, you’re clearly missing my communication on this. You’ve got too much passion on the religious component of the American Revolution for me to shout over. It’s ok. I acknowledged your position - if you can’t acknowledge mine, then we’re done.
You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the court, as well as ignorance of what the steps up to this point have been. The court doesn't sit there on high surveying the landscape for constitutional crises in which to intervene. They're a court of appeal, the final word in judicial matters. And they can't review a case that hasn't been heard yet. None of these cases has gotten past motions and the SCOTUS, it appears, doesn't disagree with the reasoning behind the lower court dismissals.
You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the court, as well as ignorance of what the steps up to this point have been. ...
***So do you, but I don’t pretend to be an expert on it and disparage other FReepers over something that most people are not experts at.
And they can’t review a case that hasn’t been heard yet.
***I never said that, so what’s your point? They CAN hear a case that hasn’t been heard if they want to.
None of these cases has gotten past motions and the SCOTUS, it appears, doesn’t disagree with the reasoning behind the lower court dismissals.
***Your weasel term, “it appears” is just that: weasel. And since the Donofrio case is still pending as well as others, you cannot conclude that the court doesn’t disagree with the reasoning yet. So for someone who sets himself up as such an expert, you’re falling flat. Your analysis would have been plenty welcome if you simply removed the disparaging remarks, so maybe next time, Mr. legal expert jerk, you might consider removing them. That way if you’re wrong, you don’t have to put up with response insults, you only get the basic corrections to your reasoning.
They CAN hear a case that hasn’t been heard if they want to.
Let's hear it for an activist court! Seriously, name one case in which they've been the original trier of fact.
And since the Donofrio case is still pending
It was denied. There's no place left for it to be pending. Even Donofrio doesn't claim it's still pending. Unless you're conflating Donofrio's case with Wrotnowski's.
Donofrio Case (Certifigate): STILL PENDING according to Supreme Court
Monday, December 08, 2008 8:33:46 AM · by DouglasKC · 75 replies · 3,395+ views
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144944/posts
What Donofrio sent to the court was a request for a stay. That was denied. There's nothing else there. Go read Donofrio's blog for yourself and see. Go look at the SCOTUS docket for yourself and see.
Sheesh.
Per the thread...
This order list was released by the United States Supreme Court on Monday, 12/8/2008.
Near the top, in the category “ORDERS IN PENDING CASES” is this:
08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
No. 08A407 Title:
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
v.
Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
Nov 26 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
Dec 1 2008 Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A407) denied by the Court.
I’ll post my response on the other thread, where it belongs.
I can’t wait. Be sure to make note of the case number.
Proud to be a birther.
You can be a natural born US citizen and still have dual citizenship. There's no relation between the two.
If you were born here in the US and one of your parents was British, you would be a natural born US citizen and also be eligible to be a British subject.
He also will probably have to admit that he was made an Indonesian citizen as well so as to not lie to Supreme Court.
Maybe, but that's a long way from this "born in Kenya" story.
I have gotten sick of AllahPundit’s constant digs and snide remarks about Sarah Palin, and Ed Morrissey’s editorials was the only reason I even went there anymore. I don’t mind if they disagree with those who want the birth certificate released, but what infuriates me is the hysteria and name calling they use.
They claim to be conservatives, but the tactics they use are in no way different than those used by the DailyKos, Democratic Underground, or Huffington. I don’t bother going to those types of sites, so why would I go to Hot Air? Ace of Spades, American Thinker, Flopping Aces, all covered it rationally, so why is it so difficult for PajamaMedia to do so?
Thanks for referring to this post, as I hadn’t seen it until you referenced it today....
You said — “This is what you wrote on Thursday as you started your vanity thread:”
You actually need to get glasses... (LOL...) because you can’t read who posted it... It wasn’t me... My, my, I knew some FReepers couldn’t read, but I didn’t think that included you, too... It’s a sad situation...
A case going to conference is automatic if a justice denies the original application and the applicant reapplies to a second justice.
From the supreme court website>>>>>>
•
If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until
a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred
to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure
A case being referred to conference does not indicat a case either does or does not have merit, it simply means a case has been submitted to two different justices
Link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
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.