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.
Scrotus can’t change the Constitution. Black robed tyrants can’t change the Constitution. That’s the only ‘jurisprudence’ I go by.
Pull till ya hear a pop.
Your comments on this thread belie that statement.
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.
Once again, for your edification...
“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)
You just reached the height of absurdity.