Wait, but aren't so many of the important US supreme court rulings so contested because they have to consider the ramifications, e.g., of whether a ruling will take power away from the state and give it to the federal government? How is that not a "what if" scenario? Isn't the Baston rule just a big loophole?
Appellate courts get to make such considerations, but not the lower court. The lower court judge can say "I believe the facts say X and therefore law Y should apply" but the appellate courts can say that the interpretation or Y or even law Y itself is incorrect and tell the lower court judge to reconsider the outcome of using law Y in that manner given facts X.
