Replies to post #351230 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[rekcusdo]

"Judge Pratt's lower court decision to dismiss is a precedent that cannot be ignored."

It can be ignored, actually...by appellate courts at least. welcome to the rule of stare decisis and the Constitution!

Please read my other post so you can be less confused on this topic.

[whipstick]

Nope I guess you're right it's not the same case. You've managed to convince yourself that your logical fallacy isn't one. I guess that comes with the territory of misdirection.

Here's how I read this in very simple terms.

This other lower court (Pratt) agreed with another lower court (Lamberth) citing the other lower court's ruling (Lamberth) which is now on appeal to a higher court (Perry vs Lew).. is that not correct?

So in other words the other lower court (Pratt) just used Lamberth's ruling as precedent but it is under appeal to a higher court. Further you say Pratt said he would have agreed were with Lamberth's conclusion if the roles were reversed, you then go on to say that it pointedly focused on the differences in the C-W case, which makes sense since they were apples to oranges but doesn't support your argument.

I don't really see how you figure that should factor into the higher court's ruling because as you say, Pratt WASN'T ruling on the selfsame case. He was just using it as a precedent because at this point in time it is. So the lower courts both made mistakes based on Lamberth's first mistake, which should further one's resolve that this needs to be corrected in the appellate court lest others use it improperly as Pratt et all have.