for an opinion to be binding on the lower court, ALL 9 judges must have acknowledged subject matter jurisdiction by entering opinions, here we have a portion of anderson that only has 5. All 9 judges, have to agree that the threshold issues have been met (articleIII sec1), and do so by entering an opinion. They have not. Anderson simply …
for an opinion to be binding on the lower court, ALL 9 judges must have acknowledged subject matter jurisdiction by entering opinions, here we have a portion of anderson that only has 5. All 9 judges, have to agree that the threshold issues have been met (articleIII sec1), and do so by entering an opinion. They have not. Anderson simply does not apply.
I simply argue that the lower court has overextended anderson's application to this case.
a lot of this depends, on my assumption that the minority is DYING to make those counter arguments, and has been effectively muzzled, the petition gives them the chance to do it (at least behind closed doors) of the comittee mtg on the 24th.
for an opinion to be binding on the lower court, ALL 9 judges must have acknowledged subject matter jurisdiction by entering opinions, here we have a portion of anderson that only has 5. All 9 judges, have to agree that the threshold issues have been met (articleIII sec1), and do so by entering an opinion. They have not. Anderson simply does not apply.
I simply argue that the lower court has overextended anderson's application to this case.
a lot of this depends, on my assumption that the minority is DYING to make those counter arguments, and has been effectively muzzled, the petition gives them the chance to do it (at least behind closed doors) of the comittee mtg on the 24th.