>This may be the SC’s last chance.
Last chance to act honorably, perhaps, but there is no precedent nor legal mechanism to punish or police the SC for declining a petitioner a hearing. They do that over 7,000 times per year.
>Because to me it really looks like a portal
It bears some resemblance to a particle accelerator as well.
>You can make fun of orbs, but it's highly possible you are an orb yourself.
You looking for Dick, Anon? No, not that. Dick is our pilot. He flies the orb.
The Solicitor General waived a response to a petition that does not name the US as a defendant. That is perfectly normal, Anon. In what way would that justify 'trusting the plan'?
"If the petition in your case is so plainly meritless that the Court will not need the assistance of a brief in opposition, you may wish to waive your response. The solicitor general and state attorneys general often do this."
Opposing Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court
ABA Litigation Manual, 3d ed.
Yes, but there is no consequence nor legal remedy should they deny the petitioner a hearing. They receive 7,000 to 8,000 petitions per year and agree to hold hearings on about 80.
> logic behind it
The logic is that if the petitioner is not granted a hearing no legal mechanism exists to seek remedy. Should the petition fail in conference it goes on the 'dead list' and that's that.
https://libguides.law.umich.edu/scotus
BTW, the only requirement necessary for a petition to be placed on the conference list is the expressed interest of a single justice:
Justices Decide Whether to Grant Cert
If a Justice decides to talk about a particular case in conference, it is put on the discuss list.
If no Justices choose to the discuss the case, it is put on the dead list.
Cases on the dead list are automatically denied certiorari. Such rejections do not have precedential effect.
Four justices must vote in favor of granting cert.
Out of the 7,000-8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the Court typically grants certiorari and hears oral argument in about 80. After the conference, an order list is published announcing the cases granted cert.
A case that has been granted cert is put on the Court's docket and given a docket number.
>all the more reason for her to recommend the petitioner be granted relief
She didn't do that. She waived comment. She did not endorse the petition. She is no longer involved unless requested by the court. The 'Tenth justice' only applies to cases involving the US in 'government litigation'. Brunson does not, rather it's Brunson v Adams, et al.
"The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office. The United States is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year."
https://www.justice.gov/osg/about-office
BRUNSON, RALAND J.
Petitioner
vs.
ALMA S. ADAMS, ET AL.
No: 22-0380
WAIVER
The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case,
unless requested to do so by the Court.
ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
November 23, 2022
Just picked this up. It is rumor-level (redacted source):
https://justiceforuswgo.wordpress.com/2023/01/07/exclusive-breaking-the-u-s-supreme-court-accepted-the-raland-brunson-case-the-supremes-accepted-the-case-source-is-redacted-to-protect-source/
>that said, I'm still not thinking this will get granted cert.
In order to get on the conference list at least one justice had to express an interest in the petition. Rumor mill tonight, approach with caution:
https://justiceforuswgo.wordpress.com/2023/01/07/exclusive-breaking-the-u-s-supreme-court-accepted-the-raland-brunson-case-the-supremes-accepted-the-case-source-is-redacted-to-protect-source/