[AndyJackson]

You have utterly and totally missed the point of this case.

Kethledge was not deciding the merits of Patel's case, which you are trying to argue here. All he ruled was that Patel had standing to seek judicial review of the administrative decision and Kethledge did so on the basis of the black and white text in the Administrative Procedures Act.

Please try to be accurate. Kethledge is applying the law as it was written by Congress. Want a different law, get Congress to pass it.

What you are advocating is for the judge to ignore the law and make up his own laws. You are no better than the liberals you despise.

[SoConPubbie]

What you are advocating is for the judge to ignore the law and make up his own laws. You are no better than the liberals you despise.

Seriously???

It is the job of a higher court, to review the full case, not just the issue raised. If the case is flawed, for some other reason then the issue that landed the case into review, do you think the higher court would/should simply ignore it?

If there is a foundational issue in the facts of the case, do you think the court should put blinders on and ignore it?

If the legislation the case is based on is incorrect in some fashion, would you not expect individual jurists to comment on it?

Have you not read the many statements made by Thomas concerning the incorrect nature of various policies/precendents/statutues with respect to the 10th Amendment?