ext_284991 ([identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2010-04-10 06:40 am (UTC)

The Supreme Court can only rule on things brought to them. It hasn't been brought to them yet AFAIK. Which means they haven't refused it either. Therefore, it's undecided, not Constitutional.

And your statement is logically false anyways. Undecided isn't undecided if the Court refused to hear it, as that's a decision.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting