Replies to post #351248 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[whipstick]

I wonder why is it disgrace to question a court's ruling that references a case as precedent that I believe was wholly wrong in its interpretation of the law?

Who am I disgracing? Myself? You? The Court? your hyperbole?

I'm not choosing to ignore the ruling. I'm just questioning the reliance on a ruling as precedent that is soon to be remanded and/or overturned.

That's a belief. It might be wrong but you might be wrong too, sir.

Personally, I was not saying it was a ridiculous joke, more that it was erroneous given the facts that are now public.

Did you read Epstein's piece today? It was pretty clear that the Judge in error was Lamberth but maybe you don't read dissenting opinions.

[rekcusdo]

"the Supreme Court relies on its OWN ruling in order to render a verdict."

Haha...a ruling and a verdict are the same thing. So think about this. You literally just said that the supreme court relies on its own ruling to render a ruling. Doesn't have anything to do with anything...I just laughed when I read it.

"But lower court decisions are constantly cited in SCOTUS rulings as contributory to their end decision."

To repeat what I already said, the Supreme Court is NOT bound to lower court decisions. However, they will hear lower court opinions as persuasive evidence. There is a difference! For the appellate level, they may also hear lower court decisions as persuasive evidence, but the only courts they are bound to are other appellate courts and the Supreme Court.

This has gotten a little off topic with the wild and made up court proceedings you've claimed in this thread...but to repeat where this all started, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT THAT EXISTS IN THIS APPELLATE CASE. You have yet to refute that convincingly.