Q1. Does petitioner Brockman properly asserts that Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) warrant him certiorari relief because the sixth circuit court of appeals resolution in the context of an certificate of appealability on his subject matter jurisdiction claims were amiss and in substantial conflict with relevant decision of this court, when it determined that jurists of reason would not find the district courts procedural rulings rejecting his subject matter jurisdiction claims for failure to meet the AEDPA's statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) debatable , notwithstanding the clearly established federal law enunciated in U.S. v Cotton 122 S.Ct 1781 which cautioned that questions of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived?

Q2. When a party in an action raises a lack of subject matter jurisdiction question, or even if the party fails to challenge the question of that jurisdiction, and it reach the attention of the court including the U.S. Supreme Court, does the court has a special independent obligation to determine whether the subject matter jurisdiction exists, and to correct any exiting flaw in the subject matter jurisdictior of the case?

Does petitioner Brockman properly assert that Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) warrants him certiorari relief?