[hedgetrimmer]

No they didn't.

They said they can't tell when an agreement is significant enough to qualify as a "treaty", therefore they dimissed the question as not appropriate for judicial consideration.

They did NOT reject the argument that Fast Track is unconstitional.

[1rudeboy]

They said they can't tell when an agreement is significant enough to qualify as a "treaty", therefore they dimissed the question as not appropriate for judicial consideration.

Again, after a fashion. The court said that the apellants failed to prove their case (that Fast Track is unconsitutional).