[elfman2 on another computer]

"Refusing to take a case is not the same as ruling on a Constitutional issue."

I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

[exodus]

I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

**********************

A judge, one man, decided that Congress and the President didn't violate the law when the President went to war on his own. That judge has no business deciding that this case didn't merit consideration. Deciding whether a case has merit is the job of a Grand Jury, not of any judge.

I am also one man, and I say that our law has been violated.

[El Gato]

Refusing to take a case is not the same as ruling on a Constitutional issue."
I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

Actually he is correct. Denying "cert", that is not hearing a case, is not a ruling on the issues. However in this instance, the district court judge did not decline to rule, he dismissed the case for lack of merit. Meaning he did rule on the case itself, against those bringing the case. Not the same thing at all. If higher courts did the same and eventually the Supreme Court denied cert and did not here the case, that would leave the lower court rulings standing, while not setting any new legal precident. However no new precident is required in this case, because several older cases addressing the basic issues agree with the district courts ruling in this particular case.

[William Terrell]

I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

Well, no, there are several ways that a court can refuse to hear a case that has nothing to do with the merits of the issues in question. This judge used one. He wimped out. He could have taken it.

There was a most important constitutional question involved. The transfer of powers from the legislative branch to the executive branch is what happens when the legislative branch lets the executive branch go to war without a formal declararion under 1-8-11.

If that's not a violation of the separation of powers, we're so far gone as to moot any of this discussion.

Plus, this is a federal district court. A federal district court can't "settle" a constitutional issue by refusing to hear it, WHATEVER THE REASON they don't, as far I can tell.