[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?

[Cboldt]

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

Not to get into an argument about what constitutes sound law, the answer to your question is "no." The function of the SCOTUS is nominally to determine if the law comports with the consitution. Sometimes the facts play into that determination (e.g., the age of a captial offender). Again, I noted that I did not have the question posed to SCOTUS in this case, but I'm confident in asserting that it didn't ring of "Is Michael telling the truth or not?"