Wiki? Really?<quoted text>
I'll follow my own advice.
from wiki, or you could look anywhere and find the same thing:
"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below. However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case. As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.
this is basic stuff...
See now the entire text of the ruling (I won't call it an opinion, BECAUSE IT ISN'T a ruling on the substantive merits).
Moreover, you are relying on this one sentence from 1972? Seriously?
This is why I know you are not, and have never been, a trial lawyer. If Baker shut this issue down in 1972, how then do you explain the court cases that continue today? They exist because Baker did not have the effect you claim it had, besides being relatively very old law. You pretend that no cases on this issue have happened in the interim that would move these issues outside the very narrow precedential scope of Baker?
You are a law student, chump, and I am increasingly convinced you aren't even a very good one at that.
Basic stuff indeed. 1972. Seriously. If this were 1973 or 1975 you might have a point, but the case law in the circuits has developed a tad since then.
I notice you didn't bother posting the rest of the Wiki article which describes the limitations on this ruling, but you are very good at cherry picking, aren't you?
Too bad that is no substitute for real advocacy, of which you evidently know nothing.
if you were correct, none of these gay marriage cases now would ever have gone to trial. Their mere existence proves you wrong.