We’re not talking about the entire federal government here. We are talking about state laws that have US constitutional implications. SCOTUS will generally not hear appeals from state supreme courts if it decided the case on “adequate and independent” state law grounds. If any federal precedent, either Constitution, case, statute, or treaty, is applied in deciding the case, SCOTUS has discretion to hear it. Hence, why SCOTUS heard Loving v. Virginia, a marriage case, since the 14th Amendment was directly implicated.
You comment that we threw off the common law is ludicrous. The 7th Amendment still allows English cases to be used in US federal court if no US precedent exists on that discreet matter. If memory serves, that hasn’t come up since before the Civil War in any serious fashion.
While the Constitution doesn’t expressly state SCOTUS has judicial review powers, it is implied and the only practical solution. Article III states: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution....” If parties before the court dispute the constitutionality of a particular law or behavior, and SCOTUS cannot adjudicate constitutionality, what are they to do? Keep them in the courtroom screaming at each other and watch? Hand the litigants pistols and swords to slaughter each other, with the survivor’s position prevailing?
.
The 14th Amendment was not implicated, directly or indirectly!
Nobody was being denied anything, thus the case was based on a canard.
Every plaintiff in every case had the ability to marry if they chose. Instead they chose to redefine marriage, and the SCOTUS decided to join them in that folly; something that they lacked the legitimate power to do.
Nice try at LGBT propaganda, but no cigar!
.
.