actually that quip was as lame as your analysis...<quoted text>
That makes about as much sense as saying that the Four Color Theorem negates the Pythagorean because its proof doesn't rely on right triangles. What do that teach at the Matchbook School of Law, anyway?
Its set rules of construction, an appellate judge can overrule the analysis of a lower decision and/or the holding...
that occurred in the Prop 8 case in many ways including the removal of a finding of a fundamental right to gay marriage.
In the DOMA case, the appeal court specifically found no basis in animus which negates that as a point of law in the "law of the case".
So its the difference between how legal precedents work and the bullfloppy you erroneously think relates...
you usually don't "get it" so i would think you would ask instead of insult and try to bash me over the head with your not knowing!