No. 00-953 Status: SCH. CONF. Title: Stephen E. Jones, et al., Petitioners v. George W. Bush, et al. Docketed: Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit December 11, 2000 (00-11346)

~~Date~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dec 11 2000 Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 10, 2001) Dec 11 2000 Motion of petitioners for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper filed. Dec 11 2000 Motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed. Dec 13 2000 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 5, 2001 Dec 13 2000 Motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari DENIED.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Charles W. McGarry 900 Jackson Street 2147480800 Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75202 Attorneys for Respondent: Harriet Miers Locke Liddell & Sapp 2147408450 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201 Party name: George W. Bush Barry McNeil Haynes & Boone 3100 NationsBank Plaza Dallas, TX 75202 Party name: Richard B. Cheney

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Answers

to answer your question, not really. the supreme court has shown they are blind to justice, and they are now just an extended arm of the REPUBLICON party.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Oh please, do one of Ginsberg.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Barry,

No one needs to do Ginsburg. She's already done.

The woman is Halloween Ready, right out of the box. :)

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

No need to do one of Ginsberg there Barry. Think of the savings on makeup.

As for Cheney: There's a '75 picture of him and Rumsfeld in this week's USN&WP. Cept for the folded arms and curled lip you'd have never guessed unless of course you'd paid attention in '75.

Anybody willing to pony up?

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Ginsburg voted to protect Democracy, Barry. She isn't part of the Facist Five who usurped democracy installed a president by judicial fiat.

God, you GOP people are such assholes.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Was someone talking about make-up?

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Uh, Thats breaking news alright Pam, 'cept it just aint true. 11th circuit court of appeals aint exactly the supreme.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001

David--

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but if you go to the supreme court and click on the 'Docket' and then search for either 'cheney residency' or docket # 00-953, you get what is on this thread above.

I thought it was current.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2001

David, that should be 'Cheney residency'.

The site is

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2001

Pam, You are indeed correct, the mistake was mine, duh! This case was before the 5th circuit court of appeals (not 11th as I stated), but now the Jones case(docket no 00-953)petition is before the SCOTUS exactly as your post indicated.

I really don't expect SCOTUS to hear this case and then overturn the earlier court ruling, do you? (I don't expect them to take the case at all.) I guess we will know in a couple of more days since it was distributed for Jan 5 conference and due by Jan 10.

But this IS interesting news, I didn't know it had been further appealed to the supremes. So thanks, and I promise to actually try to read your next post before commenting!

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2001

David--

I think the Florida case went before the 11th Circuit Court. This is the group of former judges from Texas.

I'd appreciate your explaining the 'docket'. I thought if it was a case on the docket, it was going to go to trial.

No, I don't expect much from the Supreme Court. And that's a terrible way to feel.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2001

Well, we have the answer to the question, David.

5 > iWon 5 5 > CBS News 5 > Reuters

High Court Clears Cheney on Residency Issue January 5, 2001 3:13 pm EST

By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court let stand on Friday a ruling that Dick Cheney is a Wyoming resident constitutionally qualified to serve as Republican George W. Bush's vice president.

Three Texas residents had sued to keep the pair from claiming the state's electoral votes because the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that electors vote for a president and vice president who live in different states.

The lawsuit claimed Cheney, a former Wyoming congressman, still lives in Dallas in Bush's home state, despite having changed his voting registration to Wyoming on July 21, four days before he became Bush's running mate.

A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court in New Orleans dismissed the lawsuit, ruling Cheney is a Wyoming resident.

The Supreme Court rejected without any comment or dissent an appeal by the three individuals claiming the case "presents important constitutional questions" and asking the justices to reverse the lower court rulings.

The Supreme Court also rejected without comment two other pending cases arising from the legal battle in Florida over the presidential election.

In one case, Democratic voters sought to throw out 2,400 of Florida's overseas ballots, mostly from military personnel, because they arrived after Election Day on Nov. 7.

In the other case, three Republican voters from Florida asked the Supreme Court to hear their constitutional challenge to the hand recounts of ballots after a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta ruled against them and against Bush.

Ruling in a separate case involving Bush and Democrat Al Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 2000, by a 5-4 vote effectively gave Bush the presidency, saying recounts of ballots in Florida could not resume. The decision forced Vice President Al Gore to end his fight for the White House.

The justices overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering the recounts, holding the decision violated the U.S. Constitution's protections of equal protection under the law because there were no uniform rules for counting the ballots.

After that late-night ruling, the justices resumed their regularly scheduled recess. They met for the first time since then on Friday to consider cases and will return to the bench on Monday to hear arguments and issue orders.

3 > 3 >

3 >

CHAT ABOUT IT! Chat live with other members about today's top headlines! 3 > Join our News and Current Events chat now! 3 > News and Current Events Bulletin Board

POLITICS

3 > Click here to email this page to a friend

Take iWon with you on the Web. Get the Copilot! 7 > 3 > Advanced Search Check out these iWon features: 5 > Music 5 > Fashion & Beauty 6 > Autos 5 > Co-Pilot 5 > Greeting Cards 7 > Money 5 > Radio 6 > Travel 6 > Careers 5 > Entertainment 5 > Health 5 > Movies 6 > Real Estate 5 > TV 5 > Celebrity Gossip 5 > Fashion 5 > Horoscopes 5 > Music 5 > Referrals 5 > Weather 4 > Chat/Boards 4 > Food & Drink 5 > Lottery 5 > News 3 > Search/Tools 4 > Winners 5 > Computers 5 > Games 5 > Love & Advice 5 > Prizes 5 > Sports 5 > Site Map 3 > How iWon works 5 > Make iWon my home page 1 > My entries 1 > My profile 1 > Sign out 1 > Help & Feedback 1 > Privacy Policy 4 > Affiliate Network 1 > Sweepstakes Rules 3 > Prize Payout 1 > Terms of Service Advertise on iWon

1 > Jobs at iWon 1 > About iWon 1 > Lost Password 5 > Site Overview 1 > iWon Quick Tour 3 > Earn Entries with iWon VISA 1 > Copyright © 1999-2000 iWon, Inc. All Rights Reserved. "iWon", "iWon.com", the iWon logo and "why wouldn't you?" and "Best Search on the Web" are trademarks of iWon, Inc. Patent pending.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2001