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.
This point needs to be hammered into their brains. It shouldn't be hard, there seems to be nothing in their to stop it. :)