"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.
This will fall under the initial care of which jurist?
What jurisdiction is PA?
Sorry got interrupted before finished
As I would read each case dad would first examine the plaintiff/defense Tell me what was incorrect and why. Then he would discuss which court and next give me details on each premise. What was assumed , what was incorrect what had merit
He would then explain why the SCOTUS had to turn each down.
All except those two. One was held by Thomas the other by Scalia IIRC. It was a move used very seldom. Not a direct turndown like Cert denied
Of course he told me the history of last time used and the history of standing and the history of initial decision coming directly from the constitution. Sure wish I had the photographic memory he did
It kept his mind agile. Wish I had taped those conversations.