Provocative Speculations about the Supreme Court's Considerations of the Eligibility Challenges

Quite a bit of contemplating and communicating may be done, before we next hear from the Supreme Court, on Wednesday. Meanwhile, the interested reader is likely to find these items provocative.

In "Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Wednesday," Phil of TRSoL relates that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will not announce a disposition on today's conference about Berg's application for injunction until Wednesday, 1/21, due to the court being closed Monday and Tuesday.

In his piece, Phil refers to profoundly interesting analyses of the SCOTUS by two experienced, albeit, anonymous legal professionals. One, by "Lawyer from Missouri" was discovered in I.O's second comment to Monday's post, "Countdown of the Fictitious Presidency of Barack Obama."

The other brief analysis is that of the father of FReeper, "hoosiermama" (if accurately copied or compiled; it seems so to me). This hoosier grandpa is a former Federal Appellate Court legal clerk.

Both analyses, plus one other, put Berg's case and potentially others in the "alive and very well" category and fit together to potentially provide significant insight into how the SCOTUS is approaching this. It has also been noted that it took a 5 of 9 majority to accept the Anderson amicus brief, to Berg v. Obama.

Can you write a good amicus brief, for any of the cases being brought to SCOTUS? (See the list, here.) Or, do you know of someone who might? This may be a very good time to do so.

Amidst this analysis, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court might find fraudulent activities in Congress, regarding their treatement of Obama as a certifiably eligible presidential candidate. The next posting in I.O. examines how this may be so.

I.O. may also add another analysis or two, to this posting -- if I can find the time and bandwidth (Internet is down, at home).

Update, 1/16: I'm sure some have already seen this. I'll link again to Phil's news, to present a second-hand report from Obama challenger attorney, Stephen Pidgeon, as presented by a volunteer assistant, "Chalice." I.O. is glad to see him on the job, in a fashion quite complementary to those of Orly Taitz and of Philip Berg.

Update, 1/16: Back to Berg: Comment #13 in this post by "Zapem" in the site of the same name, provides further clarification. Since further discovery is in order, that is the job of the lower courts, not of the SCOTUS.