Comments on: Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Distributed for Conference by Justice Scalia

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:04:41 +0000

DCL,
While your theory is merely a theory at this time, looking at SCOTUS’ Orders page certainly shows that the Supremes do grant requests on Mondays and not just Fridays.
Then again, maybe you have a different agenda…?
Thanks for commenting,
-Phil

By: DCL

DCL — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:16:12 +0000

The case is not on the SCOTUS list of cases granted Cert on today according to the SCOTUS website. This is likely over.

(ORDER LIST: 555 U.S.)
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2008
CERTIORARI GRANTED
08-295 08-307
) ) )
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., ET AL. V. BAILEY, PEARLIE, ET AL.COMMON LAW SETTLEMENT COUNSEL V. BAILEY, PEARLIE, ET AL.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The
cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted
for oral argument.
08-310
POLAR TANKERS, INC. V. VALDEZ, AK
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

By: DIANE

DIANE — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:17:03 +0000

Go get ‘em, Leo!

By: American Dad

American Dad — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:44:30 +0000

It will not be enough to have the court just invalidate Obama’s eligibility. It it happens, then the extent of Obama’s knowledge, the extent of his duplicity, the extent of his callous exploitation must also be exposed. My children and your children need to see that there still is such a thing as right, and wrong. They need to see their parents bear witness to what is right and good about our country. And we, their parents, can do that by accepting nothing less than the full measure of justice.

By: tishri

tishri — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:44:53 +0000

I take Leo’s word for it that Cort’s case is a whole lot stronger than his. Leo basically had so many problems that he encountered along the way, then on top of it all, spent nights without sleep working on his rushed case. Also, this Chester Arthur story just seemed to fall into his lap. I just love it and how it came about.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:43:06 +0000

Justice Scalia is a pretty wise old bird and one of the brightest Justices on the Court. I doubt he would have moved Cort’s case along after Justice Thomas and the Court did not move Leo’s almost indentical case along. Leo’s case was a rushed filing because the NJ courts gave leo the run around. The crooked NJ courts then changed the paperwork to make it a mess. Leo helped Cort write up his case and Leo said it is a much better case.

I also think Justice Scalia would not move it to Dec. 12th Conference if he did not think 3 more Justices would find some merit in Cort’s case. The dectective work Leo has done regarding Chester Arthur is amazing and interesting.

Leo and Cort’s story is incredible and sadly being totally ignored by the mainstream media. It makes the Watergate story from Bernstein and Woodward look bland considering they had the Washington Post 7 more than half of Capitol Hill backing them. Leo and Cort only have Plains Radio and a lot of Americans backing them.

By: James Padgett

James Padgett — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:03:26 +0000

I hope many will do what i have done. Make at least a 50.00 donation to an organization called Faith2action. It ran the full page ad in the Washington Times presenting the reasons why Obams is ineligble to be president. It has 60 second ads (made by the company who made Phillip Berg’s). For every 12,000 they can run one on FoxTV between 5 and 6. Their webiste is http://www.faith2action.org. (I am not a part of the orgnaization nor know anyone in it – except for having read much on their website and having read the ad they ran in the Washington Times.

By: Kris

Kris — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:57:17 +0000

It certainly does appear that our lower courts, at least in those states we are aware of, are filled with a lot of people ignorant of the law and its proceedings. How then can anyone expect Justice to be served?

6American Natural Born
December 8th, 2008 20:56
Phil and Angry Dave,

It does not necessarily mean that there are 4 in favor of the merits; but it does at least mean that Donofrio vs Wells was declined for proceedural reasons.

Playing devil’s advocate here…. could it not also just mean that in order to prevent continuing resubmittals to other justices if chosen justice denies filing on his/her own, the resubmittal justice simply goes through the procedure of referring to whole court for conference in order to get the thing stopped for good? Hopefully not so in Cort’s case, but you wonder.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:59:27 +0000

American Natural Born,
Your thought also has merit, as a wikipedia look-up of “certiorari” will show that when the Supremes deny any further consideration of a given case, it does not set precedent, but instead simply allows a lower court ruling to stand.
-Phil

By: American Natural Born

American Natural Born — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:56:27 +0000

Phil and Angry Dave,

It does not necessarily mean that there are 4 in favor of the merits; but it does at least mean that Donofrio vs Wells was declined for proceedural reasons. As the court must presume that the NJ courts were right and Donofrio wrong, on proceedures, until courts prove otherwise. Thus Donofrio was sabotagued by Sabatino from the start….

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:41:21 +0000

Angry Dave,
While I do find it odd that Associate Justice Scalia would distribute a nearly identical case to Conference instead of simply denying it on the same day that Donofrio’s case was denied (unless they’ve discussed all of this at their private Conference, as you’ve suggested), I would still caution on being as optimistic as to say that the case would be granted a formal hearing on Friday.
Rather, I think it would be better said that we are “expecting the best out of SCOTUS, but preparing for the worst,” and will be exceedingly surprised if they decide to take up Wrotnowski’s case.
Thanks for commenting,
-Phil

By: Angry Dave

Angry Dave — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:18:02 +0000

Landstander,

Yep, you got it right. Donofrio’s case had lots of excess “baggage”, due to intentional mishandling by court clerks at both state and supreme levels. It is likely that Scalia suggested taking up Cort’s case over Leo’s for that reason.

Regardless, if Leo’s case had been dismissed on it’s merits, there is no way Scalia would have distributed a fundamentally identical case only 3 days later. This case has already been discussed in conference by the 9 justices. According to protocol, Scalia must believe that at least 3 other justices will want to actually hear a case that he distributes for conference. Very few cases are actually distributed for conference.

Bottom line, the case WILL be granted a formal hearing on Fri.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:19:57 +0000

Landstander,
Don’t forget that it was Cort’s case that they decided to re-route to the anthrax facility.
-Phil

By: Landstander

Landstander — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:14:09 +0000

Hmm.
If the arguments are the same as Donofrio’s case, why on earth would Scalia not just deny the stay himself?
The only reason I can see him taking this to conference is because Donofrio’s case was not rejected on its merits, but something procedural.

I don’t want to get my hopes up, but does anyone have a better explanation?

By: Donofrio denied stay today, Wrotnowski on Dec 12 « Mcnorman’s Weblog

Donofrio denied stay today, Wrotnowski on Dec 12 « Mcnorman’s Weblog — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:30:17 +0000

[...] Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Distributed for Conference by Justice Scalia December 8th, 2008 [...]