[philman_36]

I don’t support ignoring laws on the books as official policy, as many here seem to do.
Stupid laws have to be repealed, not ignored.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803

“Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.)

“Clearly, a federal law which is contrary to the Constitution is no law at all; it is null, void, invalid. And a Supreme Court decision, which is not a ‘law,’ has no ‘supremacy’—even if it is faithfully interpreting the Constitution. So it is the height of absurdity to claim that a Supreme Court decision that manifestly violates the Constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land.’” (William Jasper)

Around my house, you would be called 'a tool'.

[Electric Graffiti]

“Around my house, you would be called ‘a tool’. “

Clearly. This thread is a good indication of how unmoored we are as a nation from the original intent of the Constitution.

[rottndog]

I don’t disagree with any of that philosophically.

You have to deal with SCOTUS jurisprudence as it is, not as you would like it to be. You can’t harp at SCOTUS for ignoring the rule of law while at the same time defending ignoring laws you don’t like. One does not justify the other.