Replies

Standing is not an issue at the Supreme Court Of The United States.
This is pure nonsense.

“Court takes the back road: Denies Newdow case on standing.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheist plaintiff Michael Newdow lacked proper “standing” to legal challenge the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

link to story

Psst...The Supreme Court TOOK UP the appeal in “Newdow” which means that they HEARD the case! They REVERSED the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling on standing.

I see that reading for comprehension is not one of your strong suits.

The Supreme Court can and does take on any appeal that four of the nine justices (”the rule of four”) feel addresses the most serious constitutional issues.

“The Rule of Four is a custom of the United States Supreme Court which dictates that if four justices decide that a case is worthy of being heard, the Court will agree to hear it. The Rule of Four is designed to ensure that the court’s majority cannot control which cases are heard, as without the Rule of Four, the minority justices might find themselves unable to try cases of interest.

This custom was first adopted in 1891, and made public in 1924. The Rule of Four does not appear anywhere in the official rules of protocol for the Supreme Court, but it is taken to be official because it has been practiced for so long. For members of the public, the Rule of Four is an assurance that their cases have a chance to be heard before the Supreme Court, regardless as to who is dominating it at any particular time.

The process of getting a case heard before the Supreme Court is quite complex. The justices review over 7,000 applications each year, and only agree to hear a handful of these cases. As a general rule, the applications take the form of a request for a writ of certiorari, a court order which requests lower courts to send documents and materials relating to the case to the Supreme Court.

Before granting a writ of certiorari, the justices must vote to decide whether or not the case has merit. In many instances, five of the Supreme Court justices dominate the court on particular issues, so the Rule of Four ensures that the four judges who often vote in the minority still get a say in what happens at the Supreme Court, preventing an imbalance of power which could be created by the majority of justices.”
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-rule-of-four.htm

Therefore, from among Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, as of yet, there have not been four votes to hear an Obama eligibility appeal nor to introduce Vatell’s Law of Nations into the FULL Supreme Court’s deliberations.