"The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens." [WND]
Re: "on whether arguments should be heard..'
ReplyDeleteNo, it conferred on whether to take the case. If arguments were heard, they would be simply on the question of whether the lower court made a mistake in throwing out the case for lack of standing. The issue would be standing, not the eligibility of Obama.
Most likely it will throw out this case like all the previous birther and two-fer appeals because the law on standing is very clear.
As expected, the US Supreme Court has thrown out this appeal, as it did all the others.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus.birther.appeal/
What is the difference between "conferring on whether arguments should be heard" vs. "conferring on whether to 'take' the case" ? I made no suggestion that "hearing the arguments" implied listening to arguments re: Obama's eligibility.
ReplyDeleteA case can be decided without hearing arguments, simply on the written briefs. The SC does not do this, but it is possible. And after all, a request for Certiorari is a request for the supreme Court to review the case, to accept the case. Yes, this usually involves listening to the arguments, but as I said not necessarily, and it is not the meaning of Certiorari.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the US Supreme Court has thrown out the case.