There are many here (and I count myself among them) who recognize that the Republic was founded on resistance against tyrannical authority, and thus we keep an ever-watchful eye on our leaders. The balance between respectful deference to legitimate authority, and resistance against tyranny, is dynamic and constantly shifting.
I personally believe that dynamic balance is the underlying strength of the Constitution, giving it the ability to withstand challenges from every direction.
The highest secular authority I recognize is the Constitution itself. Any particular instance of our government is merely the best we can do, at that particular time, to come up with something that follows the Constitution.
Above the Constitution, I recognize only divine authority.
To Melas: It is not "logical" to conclude that if the Supreme Court acts beyond its authority and so is not entitled to deference, we don't have to pay traffic fines. This kind of slippery slope argument is just dumb. Nothing in the article suggests such a nihilistic attidtude towards law.
To answer your question, we defer to lawful, proper authority because that is what it means to live in a civilized society based on the rule of law. We do not, however, defer to authority per se. That's tyranny.
The Supreme Court is entitled to deference only when it exercises its authority in a proper manner. This means it acts within the scope of its jurisdiction and that its decisions fall within the reasonable realm of legal opinion.
Nevertheless, it may also be given deference, even when it is not entitled to it, for various social, political, and prudential reasons. I agree that we have given the Court deference for decades on many decisions that are widely recognized (by both liberal and conservative legal scholars and historians) as completely outside the bounds of the Constitution. E.g., Roe v. Wade. There may be very good non-legal reasons for doing this. But don't kid yourself, we're still acquiescing in a form of judicial tyranny.
"Why obey any court you don't agree with? Why pay the traffic fine when you're not in agreement? Why cooperate with the police when they serve you with a warrant from county or district court? Why defer to any authority at all?"
Humm, sounds like California today! Maybe the World tomorrow...
Why claim we are the United States o fAmerica when our Laws
and our government No longer reflect the clear language and
intent of the framers?
Actually it's much simpler. If the court does not have jurisdiction, then you aren't bound by its decisons. If the 7th District Court for People's Justice in the People's Republic of Bongo declares that your home is to be forfeit to their Prime Minister's son, and failing that you must pay a fine of $200,000 to the Bongo treasurer, would you feel bound by such a ruling?
Of course not. Why not? It is a court, isn't it?
But it lacks jurisdiction.
Just as profoundly and as certainly, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in the present case. And nothing they can say can conjure up jurisdiction when noe exists.