Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Myths About Supposed Court Action About President-Elect Obama's Supposed
Ineligibility:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_30-2008_12_06.shtml#1228153366
A bunch of people have asked me what's up with the Justices supposedly
ordering President-Elect Obama to produce documents related to his
eligibility for the Presidency. (As I noted below, I have no reason to
doubt his eligibility, but here I'm just trying to rebut one claim
about the Justices' supposed action on the subject.) Here's a sample
of what [1]I'd gotten, from the "Amazing Facts" blog:
SCOTUS tells Obama to show proof of Natural Born Citizenship
Supreme court ruling on Obama's eligibility for presidency
[2]http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed
that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg
against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently
dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No.
08-570 contains the details....
Except this is not a fact, amazing or otherwise; the Court did not
tell President-Elect Obama anything; the Supreme Court is not "ruling"
on the subject except insofar that it has a certiorari petition before
it (like thousands of certiorari petitions are filed before it each
year); and Justice Souter has not agreed to anything. The docket sheet
makes clear that all we have is a filed petition, a filed application
for a preliminary injunction that was denied by Justice Souter, and a
"[r]esponse due December 1, 2008" -- a notation that simply marks the
date by which any response should be filed, and imposes no obligation
on anyone to file a response. Anyone can file a petition. All we have
here is action by some litigants, not by Justice Souter.
(Note that parties routinely decline to file a response to a petition
for certiorari, and those petitions are routinely denied in the
absence of a response. If a Justice is inclined, he can call for a
response, which is a signal to the respondent that at least one
Justice thinks the petition has merit; and the Court almost never
grants an unresponded-to petition without first calling for a
response. But there has been no call for a response in this case, and
I don't expect there to be any such call.)
Likewise, [3]this other case simply involves an application for a stay
denied by Justice Souter, refiled and resubmitted to Justice Thomas,
and referred to the Court by Justice Thomas -- something that is not
uncommon, to my knowledge, with second stay requests, and that
generally leads to a prompt denial by the Court at the relevant
conference (in this instance, the December 5 conference). Search for
"referred to the court denied" & date(> 1/1/2000) in Westlaw and
you'll find 782 such instances this decade; "referred to the court
granted" date(> 1/1/2000)
yields only 60, which should tell you how little you can read into the
fact of the referral.
I wouldn't even be posting about this if it weren't for the several
messages I've gotten on the subject; but given those messages, I
thought I'd try to clear the matter up as best I can.
References
1.
http://amazinglyenough.blogspot.com/2008/11/scotus-tells-obama-to-show-proof-of.html
2. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
3. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
