1. Sure, every Petition for Certiorari is brought by the party who lost below. Sometimes that party is a plaintiff whose claims were bounced; sometimes by a defendant who lost below. I’m not sure what your point is.
2. You’re right, this was not defended by the Justice Deapartment. Another reason why Kagan is not obligated to recuse.
3. Correct, no reason is ever given for any action on a cert. petition— it’s always either “cert. denied” or “cert. granted,” period. Again, I was just explaining the procedure for someone who asked.
4.The “Rule of Four” has been followed for generations, with no exception ever made even if there are recusals. I don’t see the Court changing that rule for this case.
5. I give this Petition a lot less than an 8% chance of being granted.
1. Your tenor indicated that there was something negative about a party - in this case, Hollister - filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the SCOTUS because the party’s case was ‘bounced.’ No other reason to petition, is there?
2. Kagan and Sotomayor should both recuse themselves from every petition involving their appointor’s eligibility to serve in the office from which they obtained their nomination. Just a matter of public perception of bias. How does it hurt them to recuse themselves? Not sure, but I think the DOJ had an interest in this case below during her tenure as SG.
3. Again, your tenor was that a denial without comment is something negative. They rarely ‘splain themselves. So that is nothing special, and shouldn’t be cast in that light.
4. How many cases have gone to Conference where two Justices recused themselves (assuming both BHO appointees did recuse themselves?) Is there precedence for only 7 Justices deciding for/against cert? I’ve seen several where Kagan recused herself, but none where both did.
5. As I said, your guess is as good as anyone’s. I’m not willing to bet the farm one way or the other on this or any case that goes to SCOTUS.