Today is the day that the blogosphere — and, finally, the media — have been awaiting regarding the weekly Supreme Court Conference, during which they will consider whether or not to grant Donofrio v. Wells a Writ of Certiorari. Here’s Wikipedia’s entry concerning such a writ:

Four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the “rule of four.” The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari (approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but just 80 to 150 are typically granted), because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important (especially cases involving deep constitutional questions) to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool.

The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court has found anything wrong with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that four of the Justices think that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant the full Court reviewing the case and the lower court’s action. Conversely, the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that nobinding precedent is created, and that the lower court’s decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.

You may also want to check out a bit of SCOTUS history on what happens during the Supreme Court Conference.

Also, Jeff Schreiber noted (from the WSJ MarketWatch site) and Dr. Orly Taitz (one of the lawyers involved in Keyes v. Bowen and Lightfoot v. Bowen) mentioned that the We The People Foundation will be holding a conference at the National Press Club on Monday, December 8, at 1:30pm ET. Dr. Taitz thinks it’ll be aired on C-SPAN.

Here’s an excerpt from the WSJ MarketWatch article:

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

My sources say that the Supreme Court has received in excess of 1 million letters regarding the eligibility issue and that Bob Schulz of the We The People Foundation has received at least 400 interview requests from media outlets based on his Chicago Tribune ad, “An Open Letter to Barack Obama“.

An up-to-date listing of lawsuits can be found here.

Update: theobamafile.com is reporting the following:

Joe Thunder, LA radio personality, reports that Big Media is on scene at SCOTUS,  ABC, NBC, Washington Times, et al.  There are about 50 people there now.  Prayer happened.  Media is interviewing everyone.

It’s perfect.  No signs, well behaved, etc.  Let’s hope it holds.  Media is calling us as well.

A radio station in New York City wants to talk to me about Leo.  Then Florida called.  Then Georgia called.  Then Pennsylvania called.  Then Chicago, Dallas, Des Moines, and Denver called.   Now I have 3 more waiting me on in the next hour — Ed

Update: Michelle Maulkin opines.

Update: CNN video.

-Phil