[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:49:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) |
RJack <user@example.net> writes:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the
>> valid one.
>>
>
> Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact
> that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of
> the United States:
So the appeals court did not overrule the Supreme Court. And nobody
except you claimed that it did, while at the same not being able to do
so. It did overrule a lower court. The lower court not being the
Supreme Court.
Perhaps you need to think about it a bit more.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, (continued)
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/24
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/22
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22