re: #247 lawhawk

The Court denied a stay in the case of Noonan v. Bowen (12A606), but did not act on any other aspect of that case. In other words, the Court refused to postpone a lower court decision that someone is challenging. The usual request for a “stay:” (ie, a postponement) comes when the party making the challenge wants the lower court ruling kept on hold until they can appeal. A “stay” is simply a postponement order.

It would seem that one of the parties (Taitz) was seeking a stay at the lower level. The Court ruled that the postponement was inappropriate, so the lower court could proceed.

I think it clears the way to dispose of the case in swift fashion and/or opens up the lower court to smack down Taitz once again.

So, basically, SCOTUS was the last resort for Orly to avoid one or more smackdowns in lower courts for tilting at windmills?