Robert Laity’s futile appeal of his DC Circuit denial in Laity v Harris has now been docketed at the Supreme Court. The Clerk assigned case number 20-1503 to the petition for writ for certiorari. Vice President Harris has until May 28th to respond. Past practice would indicate that the right to respond will be waived. That means the case would be scheduled for conference around June 10th or June 17th with the denial showing up on the corresponding following Monday (June 14th or 21st).
Laity covers the same ground that we have seen before. He bemoans that we are suffering under a veritable epidemic of ineligible candidates – Obama, McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Harris. Oh My! He claims Harris is not eligible but never bothers to tell the Court why. I suppose we are to take his word for that. He tries to address standing. He claims the lower courts erred when he was denied on grounds of standing. As for his injury he wrote this:
The injury I have suffered is both concrete, particularized, actual and imminent. There is a nexus between the Injury
and the illegal conduct of Kamala Devi Harris in usurping the Vice-Presidency. A favorable and appropriate decision and remedy for the Petitioner by this court will redress the injury.
In other words the fact that Laity does not like Harris or her politics is causing him a great injury. He then goes on to argue that standing is not in the Constitution in the first place and was invented by the courts. (I suppose he has never read Article III where the federal courts are deemed to be courts of limited jurisdiction confined to actual cases and controversies.) I guess Laity knows the argument that he has standing is beyond lame and not likely to succeed so let’s just get rid of that little requirement.
Laity also filed a 64 page Appendix that includes the amicus brief filed at the very last minute in Laity’s case in DC District Court filed by a formerly unknown U. S. Allegiance Institute represented by attorneys William J, Olson and Mario Apuzzo. Yes that Mario Apuzzo.
Here is Laity’s petition as filed:
RC Radio Blog 
The only real question is whether Laity’s petition can sneak onto a June conference for its denial, or whether it’ll have to wait until October for its denial.
There is a conference scheduled on each of the four Thursdays in June so there is a good chance it will be denied this term. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2020TermCourtCalendar.pdf
Laity left this comment at the Post & Email blog in response to comments asking why the court will take up this case now?
I suppose Laity’s source is a little birdie? 😆
So let’s spitball a little here and assume in arguendo that the court actually accepted Laity’s case. The most they would do is rule that the DC Circuit erred in upholding on appeal the DC District Court’s dismissal on standing so the case would be sent back to the DC District. (I think about any attorney would tell you that for the court to rule Laity had standing would take a monumental change of heart on the issue and throw hundreds or thousands of prior dismissals into doubt.) The Supreme Court would not get into the merits at all. The case would go back to the DC District to look at the other issues.
Remember the DC District dismissed Laity’s motion on standing but did not decide on the other ground for dismissal pleaded by the defense, that is failure to state a claim. So the court could dismiss on those grounds if the case were to be sent back to it. Also, Harris’s attorneys could add mootness as a reason for dismissal. When Laity filed his original complaint Harris was only a candidate. Laity was asking for an injunction by the court preventing Harris from taking office. Well, as they say, that ship has sailed. Harris has been sworn in as the Vice President of the United States and the court lacks the jurisdiction to undo that.
In Keyes et. al. v Obama the Ninth Circuit addressed that issue. The Ninth ruled in dismissing the plaintiffs appeal that the plaintiffs who were candidates in the 2008 presidential election might pass the injury in fact hurdle in the standing test; however, since Obama had been inaugurated those claims were moot. Laity would also run smack into a DC District Court decision in Taitz v Obama which was also a quo warranto case filed by Orly Taitz in the DC District. In that decision the court ruled ““a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney.” Id. at 3 (citing Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).
So even if we assume Laity’s wild rumor that the Supreme Court would look favorably upon his case has a grain of truth in it he would have other hurdles placed in front of him before he would get any ruling “on the merits” or on Harris’s eligibility. In other words, not-gonna-happen.
Laity notified the attorney for Vice President Harris that his petition was docketed at the Supreme Court. Of course this stupendous event was worthy of a full article at the P&E.
Response waived: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1503/178570/20210507134807924_20-1503%20Waiver.pdf
The death knell for Mr. Laity. Harris’s lawyers, rightfully, are convinced that the court is not going to overturn a long line of decisions going back to Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), which addressed the very questions Mr. Laity poses to the court (and not in his favor). Mr. Laity’s only hope is that the Court requests the Vice President’s lawyers to respond (which frankly isn’t going to happen).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/238/537/
Thanks tbfreeman. That must have just shown up on the docket over the weekend. Since VP Harris’s attorney has waived the right to respond the docketing clerk can send Laity’s petition over to the pool clerk where the chances are very, very likely it will be denied for reasons I previously explained. The waiver is typical on frivolous cases against government officials and are a courtesy to the court. It allows them to move on with the case that has zero chance instead of having it sit in the bin until the due date.
The petition is currently set for the May 27 conference. If that holds, the denial will be published June 1.
On the plus side, Mr. Laity has a chance of getting in his Petition for Rehearing in time for the last session of the term. Otherwise it’ll be on the summer list. Better get writing, Bobby! Make sure to tell them why they should overturn a century of precedence, harkening back to Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915).
I would offer to wager with him on the outcome but he would never bet on it because despite his claim that three justices are “ready to vote to hear the case” he knows that is complete BS and it’s going to be denied.
In an earlier comment I mentioned that Ninth Circuit in denying the appeal by Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep in Keyes v Obama cited Andrade v Lauer from 1984 which cited the ruling in Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell. Orly Taitz had tried to use quo warranto against President Obama in that case.
Looks like those who are betting the under on a June 1 dismissal are going to win or at least tie.
Tomorrow is Robert’s big day but we will not know his petition was denined [sic] until Tuesday.
The only question remaining is whether Mr. Laity has his petition for rehearing ready to be filed so that it can get denied prior to the end of the term.
Laity’s petition was denied as predicted.
Click to access 060121zor_e1p3.pdf
See page 3.
Laity got back on Twitter after being banned for quite a while. Of course he is still pushing his stupid two citizen parent NBC theory. He blocked me again after I pointed out he was wrong and that he and the other Birthers had lost every single court case on eligibility (well over 200).
Laity is only comfortable hiding behind Sharon Rondeau’s comment moderation at the Post & Email.