@tc_morekindness one of the most fundamental parts of any court ruling is the court first laying out why it has authority to rule in the first place

You generally see that in court rulings at all levels. The court has to have both jurisdiction and a case on which to rule, otherwise the court would be violating constitutional principles and acting as an unelected legislature.

So if the previous court ruling was wrong about its own authority to weigh in, then that is no mere technicality, it's a fundamental error.

It's like, say I write a document saying *I* personally can make the decision. No matter how perfect the rest of my opinion may be, the fact that I'm not actually a judge on the NC court is no small technicality. My opinion cannot rule the day.

Same here. If the previous court was wrong about its authority, that's no small thing. Its ruling handed down without legal authority cannot be respected.

Anyway, sounds like the previous court based its authority in part on the errant argument over representation, so that does fit in there.