Date doesn't matter. It's a precedent. There are plenty of cases from 18th century still in use.
As for "Southern and Eastern Europeons": if you read the summary carefully, you would surmise that Schwimmer was a Hungarian. Hungary is a Central European country, not Southern neither Eastern. Whether she was truly a peon or not, we don't know. All we know is that she was a pacifist.
Thanks to all for your generous input. I absolutely agree with the two points made by Americanus:
One cannot be seated in two chairs having only one butt.
Date of precedent matters not.
I do not have the case handy, however, I believe to have come across the 1946 case where exact opposite ruling took place -- a gentlemen has refused to bear arms.
Also, in the Swimmer case the court decided (I don't have direct quote right now, so I'll paraphrase) that Ms. Swimmer should not be subjected to conundrums -- she refused to take up arms when asked if a hypothetical war was fought and furthermore the hypothetical draft that would involve 46 year-old females would take place, would she take up arms. Swimmer, apparently, could have pursued the case further on the grounds of this ruling but she died (I don't have particular dates or further facts).
It is true that most of what's to be decided or has been decided was done subjectively as the evidence and facts in my case could be argued both ways.
It is also true that any individual will look suspicious if looked at intently enough to find something suspicious. As they say: "Locks are only effective against honest people." Some things the INS will have to take (and they do) on faith as their Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are not exact (see Depo_Paul_Pierre.doc in the "Anyone with a lawsuit thinking of suing INS" thread -- do a search (I don't remember the exact name of the thread)). The INS official there talks about SOPs and it's very limp.
Some things are impossible to prove, once the accusation is there. For example, how do you prove to be a moral individual? Or that you don't have a lack of attachment to Constitution?
Any argument will still have room for a reasonable doubt, and hence, wouldn't "fly" in court.
When did valiko say that she got an oath letter? Have I missed anything? I don't think she has received an oath letter. If she received an oath letter after the notice of denial it would be good to go to the ceremony and explain the situation. No need to lie, just tell about the denial notice and the oath letter and let them sort it out. However, as I said, I am confused, when did this change to a go or not go to the oath ceremony?