[jamese777]

Why do we have appeal courts?

---

To give those who lose in original jurisdiction courts a chance to have their case examined by a different panel of justices and to insure that lower court rulings were constitutionally sound.
The Supreme Court of the United States and the US Circuit Courts of Appeals function primarily as appeals courts.

Approximately 30 rulings on Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen have been issued by state or federal Appeals Courts, almost always by multi-judge panels. No lower court ruling has been reversed.

With yesterday’s second cert conference on Hollister v Soetoro, the Supreme Court of the United States has had 13 opportunities to examine the issue.

[bvw]

The better answer: To fix mistakes Judges make. Isn’t it shocking that in “30 rulings” not one mistake has been made that produced any hearings on disputed facts, presenting of evidence, subpoena, depositions or cross-examinations.

By the way none of the rulings were on Obama’s eligibility were they? They were on legal process.

And the DC Code does not trump the Constitution.

[bvw]

With yesterday’s ["denied"] ... the Supreme Court of the United States has had 13 opportunities to examine the issue.

Dred Scott filed his suit in 1846. It took 11 years to get a ruling. ALL THE PROCESSES OF LAW WERE FOLLOWED. In the end he was ruled a sub-human, and not only him, but all descended from black Africans. That was a novel ruling. What Judicial BOLDNESS!

Scott was freed when his owner, a widow, married an well-off abolitionist. He lived as free sub-human for 17 months before consumption got him.

Scott's widow and children survived to live long enough to have the LAW declare them human again. But that took a great blood-filled war.

The estimates of the dead from that war: 600,000.

Isn't scrupulous legal process grand?