Two of the cases that came before them were tabled. Dad told me the proper term but I’ve forgotten. He knew I knew R doc order so related it to that.
His observation was that there had not been a case with lroper defendant, plaintiff and premise before the court. One of the ideal case he projected is exacta fly like this. Filed in state court challenging eligibility.
I would print off each case as they became available and we used them for his bedtime reading and my instruction time.
Dad had actually written down the finding of Gore/bush before the rummy and listed the correct VCP it would be settled and who would vote how.
I am optimistic!
"Cert. denied." All of the Obama cases were fully settled by the time the petitions to SCOTUS were filed. SCOTUS has a purely volitional role in this type of case, it has no obligation to take a case that is fully and finally settled; with "fully and finally settled" being attached by conducting a trial and one appeal.
That would be true if a person was denied ballot access, too. There is an Indiana Law Review article that summarized state election cases on presidential races, and the decisions have been on both sides, with some cases upholding access, others upholding denial of access.
I do agree that this is an ideal case - but I reject the proposition that SCOTUS cares about the constitution being upheld. Is is not concerned with except as "cover" for outcome-based rule-making. As long as the courts below get the "right" outcome, SCOTUS has no interest in the issue.