Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scalia Refers Another Obama Citizenship Case To Conference 12/12/08

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:59 PM
Original message
Scalia Refers Another Obama Citizenship Case To Conference 12/12/08
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 02:00 PM by IWantAnyDem
Another case goes to conference on Friday:

No. 08A469
Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
v.
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case Nos.: (SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.


Link To Supreme Court Docket

Another case to be denied without comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Uhhhh...... 12/12 ????
Oh Geezus they wouldn't possibly be that obvious about it, would they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I must be really slow.... 12/12?
The significance would be.....? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Bush v. Gore was decided 12/12/2000 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Ahh, a date etched in infamy, but obviously not yet on my brain...!
thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. They should just rule on the thing. To put an end to this nonsense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:07 PM
Original message
I was thinking this might be the best thing to do
I know some will always believe this but it won't continue to tie up the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. They first must have a case presented they CAN rule on
Nobody has standing and, in fact, nobody but the Congress has standing or jurisdiction.

so all they can do is deny these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. They didn't have the jurisdiction to appoint Chimpy as pResident either
but they did it anyway. It's probably nothing, but just seeing the name Scalia and the date December 12 together makes one a little paranoid. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. No, they didn't appoint Chimpy at all
They ruled on an election case is all. One case from one state in which electors were not chosen yet.

Electors have been chosen for all 50 states in the 2008 election. From here, only the Congress has standing and jurisdiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Scalia needs to be impeached.
Seriously. That guy has stepped over the line more times than most--fishing with Uncle Dick (appearance of impropriety), relying on completely worthless Deputy Attorney General opinions, failing to disqualify himself when his impartiality was in question, and so on.

I think President Obama should ask for his resignation first, then threaten to submit three new names to Congress for inclusion on the Court, bringing the total to twelve, then knock it back down to eleven by impeaching Scalia. I don't give a damn if it looks bad--this nation is skee-rewed thanks largely to that one fat-arsed fascist, and we have a lot of work to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Scalia did what any Justice would do
This is a request for an emergency stay. If Scalia saw any merit to it, he'd grant the emergency stay.

Instead, he referred to conference where it will be denied without comment, edning any chance of resubmission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Okay... but he still needs to be impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. again, this is standard procedure.
This case was presented to Ginsburg first, because it arose out of the circuit to which she is assigned. After she rejected it, the petitioner had the option of going to any other justice and trying again. If that justice rejected it, the petitioner could go to another justice and so on. In order to cut off these serial petitioners, it is standard practice that when a second justice is presented with a petition that has been previously denied, that justice does not grant or deny it; rather, that justice submits it to the full court so it can dispose of it once and for all.

Just as with Thomas, I can't wait for the day scalia is off the court. But he hasn't done anything wrong or suspicious here. In fact, he voted not to accept the Donofrio petition (as did Thomas and all of the other Justices) and there is no reason to think the result will be different this time (particularly since if he was so inclined, scalia could've just granted the petition unilaterally).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I agree
This was a request for an emergency stay against the electoral college. If Scalia had seen any merit in the request, he would have granted it.

Instead, he sent it to conference where it will be denied, just like Donforio v. Wells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. Good more false hope for the freeptards.
We can have another day of amusement on Thursday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I figure this will go all the way through next Monday
They will release the list of cases they take on Friday and the false hope will continue until Monday when the electoral college votes and the case is officially denied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC