OK what does this mean?
Probably means it is going nowhere. They will look at it a decide to pass on it.
OK what does this mean?
It means that this is going to scotus and that is why Matthew opened his mouth. Bambi is going to show a birth certificate and the next two years it will be about birthers and how they are part of the tea party.
It means the case has been distributed to the justices for consideration at their next conference. At that conference, they’ll discuss and vote on which cases they will hear. It takes four votes in conference to grant cert.
(It will be then be denied without comment, unless the storm brewing over D.C. is actually an indication that Hell is freezing over.)
The SCOTUS receives approximately 5,000 requests for cases to be heard each year. The court accepts approximately 130 of those cases for review. Obviously, the odds of a case being selected are slim.
Hollister filed a "petition for certiorari" (a request that the Supreme Court hear an appeal) from the two lower courts (federal district court and federal court of appeals) which both bounced his eligibility lawsuit. The Government declined to respond to the petition (a response is not required in the Supreme Court; a failure to respond means the responding party--in this case, Obama-- doesn't think the Supreme Court has any interest in the case).
Once a Petition for Certiorari is filed, and either responded to or a response is waived, each such Petition is automatically "listed for conference." That does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court will actually discuss the case; there are dozens-- sometimes hundreds-- of cases "listed" for each conference. Before the conference, each of the 9 justices circulates a list of cases they think are worth talking about. (These lists are private; the public never sees them.) If a case is on none of the 9 justices' lists, it is put on the "dead list" and is automatically denied without the court actually "discussing" it. (The list of denials is published the next business day after the conference. No reason is stated for a denial.).
If any of the 9 justices thinks a case is worth talking about, but the responding party didn't file any response to the Petition for Certiorari, the Court will usually ask the other party to respond, and put the case over for another conference.
If four of the nine justices think a case should be heard, the Court will grant the petition and schedule the case for full briefing and argument. If less that four want to hear the case, the petition will be denied without stating any reason, but the few who wanted to hear it can (but don't always) file a dissent from the denial. (If the case was on the dead list, then no one will dissent).
My prediction: the court will not ask for a response, and the petition will be denied without dissent.
Nothing. Nada damn thing. Just like it didn't in the DOZENS of others posts like this or the ones about Clinton.
I have always wondered how many of these Obama BIRTHER and Placenta law suits there have been. I found this.
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/birth-certificate-posts/
Absolutely nothing. This is the process by which the SCOTUS decides which of the literally thousands of cases it will accept for determination (the number is usually around 90 per term). The word "conference" is misleading because SCOTUS summarily denies certiorai, without discussion, for nearly all of the cases that are filed with the court.
The SCOTUS will summarily deny certorari in this particular case for the same reason it has denied certioari to the other 'birther cases" because (a) each state enacts its own laws with respect to the placement of a candidate on the ballot; and (b) under the laws of nearly all if not all states, the time to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for public office, including, but not limited to the POTUS, is when the name is placed on the ballot PRIOR to the election. Why? Because elections are expensive and require finality, and a successful challenge to the winning candidate's qualifications after the election, could require a "do-over" election at great expense, uncertainty, and delayed finality. For example, IIRC someone in the state of Texas challenged McCain's qualifications at the time his name was placed on the ballot prior to the election. Just about any opposing candidate or party could have challenged Odumbo's qualifications, just as McCain's qualifications were challenged. They were not, and as a result, the statute of limitations to initiate such a challenge expired prior to the election
My advice: Stop wasting time, money, braincells, and bandwidth on the pending birther lawsuits. Instead, challenge Odumbo's constitutional qualifications when his name is placed on the ballot prior to the 2012 election. The challenge should be brought in as many Red Sates as possible, because throwing him off the ballot in one state does not guarantee that he will be disqualified in all states.