[robertpaulsen]

"why you (apparently) insist that a court opinion is automatically right"

Nice straw man.

Interpreting the law is not a question of the "right" interpretation or the "wrong" interpretation. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the USSC "became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant."

Now, you got a better solution, let's hear it.

[inquest]

That wasn't the holding in Marbury, and even if it was, it's a circular argument. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, because it says it is? Since when is that a valid form of logic?