edge919 wrote: “Your ‘real’ court was a lower court that couldn’t support its reasoning in its decision.”
So cite the higher court that ruled this lower court’s reasoning insufficiently supported.
edge919 wrote: “I’ve shown directly how it was wrong.”
Ah, so by “lower court” you meant that *you* are the higher authority that overruled the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You played make-believe judge of your own cause, and showed — to your own satisfaction — that you are right.
I could hardly ask for a better example to support my point. I’m not trying to deny your authority over the inside of your own head. My point is about fantasy versus reality. I cited a *real* court, speaking specifically to Article II eligibility. Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?
Sorry, but you're deflecting to a logical fallacy. This court's accuracy on this particular point or any other point doesn't soley rest on a subsequent ruling from a higher court. McCain didn't win the election, so it would have been moot to appeal this decision.
Ah, so by “lower court” you meant that *you* are the higher authority that overruled the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You played make-believe judge of your own cause, and showed — to your own satisfaction — that you are right.
The point I brought up should be simple enough for you to examine without relying on a court to form your opinion for you ... especially a court that doesn't substantiate its own claim. An appeal to authority such as this one doesn't have much value unless you can show that all courts are infallible. All you're showing here is that I'm right and that you're too lazy and intellectually dishonest to admit it. Otherwise you should be able to form a rebuttal based on substance rather than character.
And this is the most appropriate rebuttal.
This case proves "the court" can be absolutely wrong. Do you not agree? I'll take your silence as a "yes."
.
Now that we have established that "the court" can be absolutely wrong, why do you keep citing them as though they constitute irrefutable proof of something? Normal conservatives have a greater distrust of the courts than trust in them.