You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the court, as well as ignorance of what the steps up to this point have been. The court doesn't sit there on high surveying the landscape for constitutional crises in which to intervene. They're a court of appeal, the final word in judicial matters. And they can't review a case that hasn't been heard yet. None of these cases has gotten past motions and the SCOTUS, it appears, doesn't disagree with the reasoning behind the lower court dismissals.
You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the court, as well as ignorance of what the steps up to this point have been. ...
***So do you, but I don’t pretend to be an expert on it and disparage other FReepers over something that most people are not experts at.
And they can’t review a case that hasn’t been heard yet.
***I never said that, so what’s your point? They CAN hear a case that hasn’t been heard if they want to.
None of these cases has gotten past motions and the SCOTUS, it appears, doesn’t disagree with the reasoning behind the lower court dismissals.
***Your weasel term, “it appears” is just that: weasel. And since the Donofrio case is still pending as well as others, you cannot conclude that the court doesn’t disagree with the reasoning yet. So for someone who sets himself up as such an expert, you’re falling flat. Your analysis would have been plenty welcome if you simply removed the disparaging remarks, so maybe next time, Mr. legal expert jerk, you might consider removing them. That way if you’re wrong, you don’t have to put up with response insults, you only get the basic corrections to your reasoning.