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.
They CAN hear a case that hasn’t been heard if they want to.
Let's hear it for an activist court! Seriously, name one case in which they've been the original trier of fact.
And since the Donofrio case is still pending
It was denied. There's no place left for it to be pending. Even Donofrio doesn't claim it's still pending. Unless you're conflating Donofrio's case with Wrotnowski's.