You made your point......you don't have to rub it in
2 questions, counsellor.......
Can you cite another SCOTUS ruling that was exempted by its authors from
being cited in a future brief as a precedent? Isn't that a tad unusual? I based
my argument on an expectation that all SCOTUS rulings either affirm the
interpretation of the portion of the constitution in question in the matter
before the court, or reinterpret the constitution in a way that will effect
future rulings of similar matters that may come before the court. In other
words, don't all SCOTUS rulings that are unique or unsual influence what was precedent before that ruling? I thought that was the reason that the SCOTUS
attempts to set new precedents by carefully reviewing the matters that it
will hear before a new term when the court will be in session, refusing to hear
matters that contain issues already well defined in the exisiting precedents of
the law?
and.......
Do you ever sleep?????
