The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[mike86002000]

(01-21-2019 07:07 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 06:48 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  Bill wrote;
No, it is not just a technicality. The rationale and reasoning behind a court's decision is every bit as important as the result, if not more. In Milligan, there were two opinions, a majority opinion and a minority opinion. Above, where you wrote: "The ruling in "Milligan" was unanimous, not just a "majority", as Boynton says.", you are misconstruing Boynton's reference to the majority opinion.
end quote

Is it not true that Ex patre Milligan was a unanimous decision?
Mike

Because the minority opinion was a concurring opinion and not a dissenting one, yes, Milligan (and, by the way, it is "parte" and not "patre") was a unanimous decision with a majority opinion and a minority opinion. In short, the result of the case was unanimous, but the rationale and reasoning for reaching that result was not.

Of course, it's "Parte", thanks. I corrected it where I could above. I didn't always misspell it. Perhaps I have something in common with Boynton, in that he didn't consistently spell it "Milligen", either.
Mike