I get things wrong from time to time. It happens more often when I try to predict the future. A case in point is when I said that I thought Mario Apuzzo would be sanctioned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for filing a frivolous appeal in Kerchner v. Obama. It didn’t happen; I was wrong.
Admitting you’re wrong is not enough
It’s all well and good to admit that you’re wrong, but the more important thing is live and grow from the experience, and that involves understanding why you’re wrong. In my case, the Court had issued an Order to Show Cause why it shouldn’t make Apuzzo pay damages, a few lawyers over at Politijab expressed the opinion that Apuzzo would be sanctioned, and I wasn’t impressed by Apuzzo’s response to the Order. Where I went wrong was in predicting the future, and in reading between the lines in the Court’s order. As part of my process to understand where I went wrong, I wrote an article on Reading between the lines.
The question, though, is what Mario Apuzzo has learned from losing the appeal. Has he learned something about standing? Has he learned that the President’s eligibility once in office is not justiciable? Or am I wrong about that?