And I stand by that. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. In the case of Texas v. White it was ruling on the Constitutionality of an act of the Texas legislature regarding secession. It ruled that the unilateral act of secession passed by the legislature violated the Constituiton.
This is important because there was nothing in the Constitution that stated or agreed with the Court's ruling...
Your opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed.
As to me, I am firmly and lovingly embracing the Court's authority by pointing out that illegal court decisions are not really law.
But who determines if the court decision is illegal? You? Who grants you that authority?
My entire position is in fact based on the authority of the Court.
How much authority can the court have if you alone can decide if their decision was illegal?
By creating "law", the "consensus of states" rule of law. The Court "invented" a condition not based on the Constitution or supporting documents. A rule of law that illegally usurps the pre-existing conditions in the documents that created the Constitutional union.
Your opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed.
You specifically said that in response to my statement that they did not quote anything from the Constitution that stated the "consensus of States" condition they based their ruling on. My statement is true, they did not. Therefore they do not disagree with me, they disagree with you! LOL.
But who determines if the court decision is illegal? You? Who grants you that authority?
LOL - You are getting flustered and it shows. Breathe deeply...your fears that I have somehow become omnipotent are not true. LOL - I have only been giving my personal opinion that the ruling was illegal, and therefore void. I would love to see that illegal decision before the Court on appeal.
How much authority can the court have if you alone can decide if their decision was illegal?
LOL - Don't worry, I'm not really omnipotent. See above.