Replies

Refusing to take a case is not the same as ruling on a Constitutional issue."
I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

Actually he is correct. Denying "cert", that is not hearing a case, is not a ruling on the issues. However in this instance, the district court judge did not decline to rule, he dismissed the case for lack of merit. Meaning he did rule on the case itself, against those bringing the case. Not the same thing at all. If higher courts did the same and eventually the Supreme Court denied cert and did not here the case, that would leave the lower court rulings standing, while not setting any new legal precident. However no new precident is required in this case, because several older cases addressing the basic issues agree with the district courts ruling in this particular case.

"Actually he is correct. Denying "cert", that is not hearing a case, is not a ruling on the issues. However in this instance, the district court judge did not decline to rule, he dismissed the case for lack of merit."

Thanks, I stand recalibrated.

However in this instance, the district court judge did not decline to rule, he dismissed the case for lack of merit.

From the article: "Calling the potential war with Iraq a political rather than a legal issue, a federal judge in Boston refused yesterday to issue a temporary restraining order that would have prevented the Bush administration from attacking without a declaration of war from Congress."

Saying something is a "political rather than a legal issue" is Judgese for "I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole!" I don't see where you're getting that he dismissed the case for lack of merit.