Today’s SCOTUS Conference
Update: From Leo’s blog:
[UPDATE - 11:10 AM Sat. Dec 13, 2008]: Yesterday, a SCOTUS clerk told Cort his decision wouldn’t be released untill Monday. This was at approximately 11:00 AM while the Justices were still behind closed doors.
Tonight I will publish a point by point breakdown explaining why the application I prepared for Cort’s brief was so much stronger than the one in my own.]
Update: SCOTUS Orders just out. Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz not mentioned.
During today’s regular weekly Friday Conference, one of the cases that the Supreme Court will be considering on whether to proceed forward is Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, a case very similar to Donofrio v. Wells, only with much more substantive analysis and significantly less lower court procedural flaws.
SCOTUSblog notes:
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference this morning, orders from which could be released as early as this afternoon.
The InvestigatingObama blog has a great post today where they discuss how they will be presenting further information on Barack Obama’s legal challenges as a means of similarly helping everyone cut through the misinformation of the mainstream media (and, unfortunately, right-leaning sources, too).
Regardless of when the Supremes make a decision (could be either today or Monday), I’ll be sure to make a posting here 
Based on past history, however, it would appear that if the Supremes do not say word about Cort’s case today, it will likely have been denied; the Supremes have granted or denied Certiorari or other grants/denials on both Fridays and Mondays; we’ll simply have to see what happens.
A current listing of eligibility related lawsuits can be found here.
Update: Per Leo’s latest posting:
[UPDATE]: 11:26 AM – Dec. 12 2008 : Rumors of a decision denying Cort’s application are unequivocally false. A SCOTUS Spokesperson just told Cort Wrotnowski there has been no decision. She indicated there will be no decision until Monday. The conference is sealed, no clerks are allowed in.]
Update: A factoid over at InvestigatingObama indicates the following:
BTW, the SCOTUS has not denied Donofrio’s NJ case, only his request for a stay while they confer over the Wrotnowski, CT case, Dec. 12.
-Phil
Are people really this stupid that they want to whine about this crap?
I guess they are.
I salute everyone here!
Sincerely, thank you for your efforts.
“The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!
Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!
The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!”
Patrick Henry
DCH,
Sounds like a number of folks are coming to my blog thinking they know all about SCOTUS.
See the Conference link at the top of my sidebar. It’s directly from the Supreme Court web site.
Thanks for commenting,
-Phil
8simone
December 12th, 2008 16:09
Not true leo. The caes that were grantede cert are published today and denials are published on monday. Wrotnowski’s was not granted cert. My husband and I both clerked for Justice ginsberg and this is the protocol they follow. I called friends that are clerking there and they said it was a unanimous decision 9 -0 to DENY cert. She didn’t sound surprised and said they’re monitoring cases to look for vexacious litigants.
That’s strange in that other filings for both a stay as well as a writ – when they were each denied – have each listed separately with its individual ruling. So far only Leo’s stay is listed as denied. That stay was pending a writ of cert….and his filing is still listed as active. So go figure the logic rather than your gossip.
Cert was not granted on Friday. Almost zero chance for a comeback on Monday. Sounds like Simone knows what she is talking about.
Eric,
You write: “Since the constitution gives Congress the sole authority to determine the time and place for the electors to meet and vote, SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to change that.”
Pratically speakign I do not believe Scotus will stay the Electoral College’s vote; but theoretically I do believe Scotus can nix the State’s apportionment of electors, on the grounds that the ballots admitted erroneous candidates forcing nearly everyone to be disenfrancished, and thus demand that the States remedy the situation, esp. in those states where state law requires electors to vote for the candidate who gets the most popular votes, even if in fact he is ineligible.
Thus Scotus could, I believe, stay the Electoral College, in this sense, without trangressing any constitutional principle. We have fraud on a massive level, the Court could confer with Congress and Congrees seeing that in fact no national election had taken place, order a new day for the election, not as a second election, but as a redo.
Thus the court could nix the apportionment, not the college, and judge the popular election bogus, issue a definitino of NBC, and then Congress would be forced to order a redoo.
Sounds constitutional to me, but then I am not a laywer.
BREAKING NEWS!!!
White House says “No Blair House for Obama until after Electoral College vote count”.
http://www.uslaw.com/pop/?p=164
@ Simone:
You’re full of it. There are situations where cert is granted on Monday.
Btw the term is ‘vexatious’ not ‘vexacious’.
You must have been a wonderfully astute clerk.
simone,
Uh, that absolutely cannot be true simply because _nobody knows what happens in Conference_ — per the page I have linked at the top of my sidebar — not even the Clerks.
Therefore, there is no way that your “sources” can know what actually happened until we see what happens Monday.
Thanks for the comment.
-Phil
Um, yeah. The Globe has a front page story about Obama’s birth certificate being a forgery.
Thanks, but I think we’re better off without their help.
What a joke! Thousands of Americans are concerned about Monday’s election and the SC doesn’t have the decency to even acknowledge the American People. Reminds me of those drive thru people that drop you happy meal in your car window, never look at you, or even say, “Have a nice day!” I don’t care what the SOP is. I just think the American people should be given enough respect as to know if a completely bogus election is going to take place before it takes place. Jerks! They don’t deserve our respect if they can’t simply acknowledge the legitimate cries of the American people.
What a joke! Unless of course something happened and I hadn’t heard about it. But I doubt it. It’s just like last Friday. They don’t care.
Patriot,
For the record, I truly believe that BHO does not meet the constitutional requirements to be President. I hope the constitution prevails and he is prevented from taking office.
With that said, the constitution specifically vests in the Congress the right to determine the time and place for the electors to meet and vote. They have done that and scheduled it for 12/15. No violation of the constitution. Since the constitution gives Congress the sole authority to determine the time and place for the electors to meet and vote, SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to change that.
Up to and until the electors vote, there has been no violation of the constitution. BHO has not been elected to anything and SCOTUS has no constitutional issue to make a ruling on.
After the electors have voted and if they voted for an individual who is said to be constitutionally unqualified, then SCOTUS can hear an appeal and make a ruling as to that individuals constitutional qualifications.
Seven of the nine SCOTUS justices siting today voted on Bush v Gore and they have serious whip marks to show for it. If I were one of them I would make sure that I was on very fim constitutional ground before even getting involved with this.
I HOPE THEY DO.
Eric
Not true leo. The caes that were grantede cert are published today and denials are published on monday. Wrotnowski’s was not granted cert. My husband and I both clerked for Justice ginsberg and this is the protocol they follow. I called friends that are clerking there and they said it was a unanimous decision 9 -0 to DENY cert. She didn’t sound surprised and said they’re monitoring cases to look for vexacious litigants.
Buy the Globe..they’re filling in the VOID.
Eric,
If Congress can determine eligibility of candidates as late as Jan 6th, then clearly the question is, whether the intention of the founders was to allow for ineligibles to knowingly be offered for election or whether it was only a safety proceedure to eliminate who at that time was known to be ineligible.
Standard practice of the courts must be considered: fraud and phoney ballots, gross negligence in conducting an election, consequences of ineligible candidates on a national election.
It will be a question of how much the court weighs the damage and injustice done and the damage or risk taken for a solution.
Biden would never have been chosen as VP, and potentially Pres. if Obama does not qualify, and if the Electoral College is allowed to vote. Therefore allowing the Electoral College to Vote, is an indisputable injustice to the states who would be disinfrancised when the candidates they vote for in the Electoral college are disqualified.
SCOTUS has the facts: if Scotus does not act it is in fact disenfrancising voters and failing in its duty to protect the entire nation from fraud in a national election.
If it does not act, it will harm its own authority and reputation.
Landstander,
I believe that SCOTUS does not have the authority to stay the electoral college election. The constitution spells out that Congress has the authority to set the time of this election. If they meet on 12/15 and vote, that by itself is not a violation of the constitution. Article II Section 1 paragraph 4
If they vote for someone who is not constitutionally qualified, then that would be a violation of the constitution. Article II Section 1 paragraph 6.
MY CONCLUSION; SCOTUS can’t stay the election, that authority is vested with Congress, SCOTUS can’t rule that an unqualified candidated has been elected, the electors have not voted.
As of this time, no violation of the Constitution has occurred.
Eric
Considering that the court is only deciding on Cort’s stay of the electoral vote, their decision to wait until Monday disturbs me.
They VOTE on Monday!
Looks like SCOTUS has decided to bunt… ‘well we WANTED to issue a stay, but I guess it’s too late now….’
I see no way that they’d announce a decision Monday and try to stop the vote while it’s happening.
I will say it again: this has always been the court’s intention. They are delaying until after the vote so they can remove Obama and make Biden president.
Things would be too sloppy to remove Obama from the electoral vote… would it mean McCain? Hillary? Biden? Whoever the Democratic electors voted on? Do the Republican electors replace the Dem electors?
Waiting until after the vote is the path of least disharmony: court ordered compromise.
Please sign this petition
to demand that all candidates
who appear on the official election ballot
be invited to
every candidate debate and forum.
If all 2008 candidates
had been
invited to every candidate debate and forum,
then most likely
Mr. Obama
would NOT
have been elected.
http://petitiononline.com/SINjames/petition.html
I wouldn’t be suprised if SCOTUS does not stay the electoral college vote. If I am reading the constitution correctly, Congress was granted the authority to set the date of the vote, not the executive or judicary. Scheduling the vote stands by itself, it has nothing to do with the individuals being voted on.
If the electors vote for someone who is not constitutionally qualifed, then I feel SCOTUS would have the right under the constitution to step in. If this is correct, then the real legal fireworks will start after December 15.
Eric
If it took until Monday, on Leo”s case, to get an answer, says to me that someone must have taken a long hard look at it. Cort’s, may be case they have been waiting for to settle the natural born issue once and for all. There should be no doubt as to the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN when they get done. This argument needs to end and the meaning needs to be CLEAR! SCOTUS can settle this once and for all.