Created Fri 21st Nov 2008 10:43am PST by 
dieseldog
All questions » General » Litigation » dieseldog 
Will the Supreme Court take the case againest President-elect Barack Obama?
Voided
Although the market asks a newsworthy question and I endeavor for the market to be reposted, the original starting odds were not correct. I would suggest reposting with odds closer to 75%-80%.
Background:
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship
has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.
The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
This will suspend on December 4th. Will settle after the U.S. Supreme Court makes their decision.
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=Leo+C.+Donofrio%2C+v.+Nina+Mitchell+Wells%2C+Secretary+of+State+of+the+State+of+New+Jersey&x=11&y=21
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html
has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.
The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
This will suspend on December 4th. Will settle after the U.S. Supreme Court makes their decision.
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=Leo+C.+Donofrio%2C+v.+Nina+Mitchell+Wells%2C+Secretary+of+State+of+the+State+of+New+Jersey&x=11&y=21
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html
Settlement details:
As reported by a major mainstream news source.
Voided
|
|
yes - U.S. Supreme Court hears the case |
|
||
|
|
no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case |
|
Voided Sat 22nd Nov 2008 1:58pm PST
Suspend date: Thu 4th Dec 2008 11:59pm PST
Initial likelihoods: yes - U.S. Supreme Court hears the case: 50%, no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case : 50%
Action history:
ryanj![[Admin]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_admin.gif "This user is an admin"){kind=icon}
: Suspending Market while reviewing starting odds
Suspend date: Thu 4th Dec 2008 11:59pm PST
more info...
Get widget!Predictions (49)
49 predictions
jonica
predicted no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case (H$100 at 77%)
subterrane
predicted no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case (H$200 at 76%)
predicted no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case (H$50 at 76%)
predicted no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case (H$1,500 at 71%)
rogerkni
predicted yes - U.S. Supreme Court hears the case (H$1,000 at 25%)
predicted no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case (H$100 at 81%)
storekeeperathscm
predicted no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case (H$20 at 81%)
predicted no - U.S. Supreme Court does not hear the case (H$100 at 83%)
chrisfmasse
steez
sdchargers![[Power User]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_superuser.gif "This user is a super user"){kind=icon}
predicted yes - U.S. Supreme Court hears the case (H$200 at 31%)Comments (20)
What is Hubdub?
Hubdub makes news more exciting by letting you stake virtual dollars on the outcomes of real running news stories.
Join now or learn moreRelated News
This news is selected automatically based on the question, its background, options and tags
This news is selected automatically based on the question, its background, options and tags
score: 10
Salon 7 weeks ago
Granholm Nov. 19, 2008 | In February 1980, Republican presidential aspirant Ronald Reagan declared that the U.S. Supreme Court needed fresh faces. The court had just declined to block a New York judge's ruling that the federal government should continue
score: 10
UPI 7 weeks ago
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens People who read this also read ... GAINESVILLE, Fla., Nov. 18 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, at 88, isn't showing
score: 10
UPI 7 weeks ago
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case involving campaign contributions a company chief executive made during a West Virginia Supreme Court race. The case involves contributions made by
score: 10
Platts 7 weeks ago
Galax, Virginia (Platts)--14Nov2008 The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to consider an appeal of a West Virginia court's decision favoring Harman Mining in a decade-old dispute with Massey Energy concerning a jury award that could amount to $77 million.
score: 10
Houston Chronicle 7 weeks ago
PITTSBURGH, Nov. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- U.S. Supreme Court to hear West Virginia case in which a State Supreme Court Justice refused to recuse himself and joined in a 3-2 decision to reverse a more than
Related tags
New in General » Litigation
Occidental College records — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia Thesis paper — ‘ not available ‘
Harvard College records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Not released
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘ not available ‘
Law practice client list — Not released
Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
Embossed, signed, paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles published — None
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Your Record of baptism- Not released or ‘ not available ‘
Your Illinois State Senate records- ‘ not available
I agree - just produce the document and this drama will be over.
Listen to this recording (at 12:30) where the ambassador of Kenya says there is a monument at Barack Obama's birth place in Kenya!
I Dig Obama. Now at least. destry coverted me.
I, a 13 Year Veteran of the US F__KING Marines, has to show a valid "county" birth certificate to get a driver's license, WHY the HELL can't the President-Elect of the US F__KING United States do the same. It is usually a simple process for anyone who WAS born in the US.
I'm sorry, but this issue just crosses by goose.
a) I'm pretty sure Obama got his drivers license before the birth certificate became a requirement (2001 where I live.)
b) Proof of residency is not a birth certificate. It can be a bill from the electric company.
c) The RNC and McCain never jumped on this because McCain was born in Panama. He has a similar problem.
You are absolutetly correct. I didn't know when law went into effect up there. It really appears to me that if he wasn't constitutionally able to be president then Hillary would have made a big deal about it in Primaries. I just think this is the right wing blogosphere looking for something to get excited about.
Law went into effect June 21, 1788 up there.
It says "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
I agree with the whole right wing thing but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to make sure that the president elect is actually eligible to be president. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution.
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a505.htm
Please log in or join to add a comment