[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?

[AndyJackson]

It is the job of a higher court, to review the full case, not just the issue raised.

Ah, no! That is not what an appellate court does in a case like this.

[AndyJackson]

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

You show your ignorance. There is no factual record because there were no proceedings in a lower court to establish a factual record. There were no proceedings because that lower court determined the individual lacked standing. So he appealed. The Appellate Court reversed, which means that they determined Patel had standing, sending the case back to the trial court for a full hearing on the facts of the case, hearing sworn testimony from both sides.