# Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2009, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292 "2009-11-12T06:52:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 166
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/166 "2009-11-17T00:26:55Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t say this was a case of first impression. Not that you’d ever know that from your cherry-picked selective quotation and evasiveness toward the thesis of my post. No, it was central to your thesis. You said: > [@](#): > > You have averred that it is from prior caselaw, but this, of course, only moves our focus to those earlier cases. At some point, cases of first impression are decided, and they not decided randomly. When a case of constitutional first impression comes along, it’s absolutely meaningful to offer opinions about what the constitution means. After the federal courts have spoken, it becomes much less meaningful, and much more appropriate to caveat one’s remarks with a “should” instead of a “does.” Any other method is simply misstating, for rhetorical effect, the present state of caselaw. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292)._