Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
Actually, it's Judge Cote's opinion, which was upheld on appeal and declined review by the Supreme Court, so as far as legal precedent goes, it's proven fact. From page 5, added emphasis mine:
You're entitled to your opinion, but when a case is decided by a court of law, and not overturned, then guess what? When you cite it, you can't be accused of expressing "pure opinion." You're expressing something that is legally considered a fact.
*drops mic* |
Nope, not fact just your projection on the legal opinion of Judge Cote. I can just as easily point to the dissent which found no case existed.
You seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Appeals are based on legal doctrine, not facts. When the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, then that case has zero legal precedent. It would have had legal precedent if the Supreme Court had heard the case and decided to uphold the verdict. With a 4-4 Supreme Court, there are going to be a lot of cases that normally would have been heard and are now being declined.