[Cboldt]

Can you name me one case where the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where the state rulings didn't stand as law?

No. And your question embodies a truism. The same truism that is my point. My point was that the SCOTUS refusal to hear the case had no bearing on the factual testimony, i.e., its decision was based purely on the presence or absence of errors of law, assuming all the facts before the trial court were properly found.

That is Applellate Law 101, as you know.

[Howlin]

My point was that the SCOTUS refusal to hear the case had no bearing on the factual testimony, i.e., its decision was based purely on the presence or absence of errors of law, assuming all the facts before the trial court were properly found.

"Properly found," he? That sounds very, very close to "let's stand."

Does the USSC let stand laws and/or actions that they believe are illegal or unlawful and not grounded in sound law?