[Miss Marple]

I am quite happy with the brief. This is about the Michigan case, and broader issues can't be dragged into this case, from my limited understanding of the rules of the Supreme Court.

[krodriguesdc]

well that's good you're happy - there are many who are not!

[fightinJAG]

Correct. Especially in a case in which the law goes against the druthers of some of the justices, the Supreme Court twists itself into pretzels in its attempts to decide a case in the narrowest possible way.

That is what caselaw---precedent---is for. The usual way to change the law in a big way is to win a bunch of small changes and build and build and build on each previous case.

No, Rush, you cannot always "put a nail in it" the first time out.