“first of all, it is not my decision that the supreme court can make up things like roe v. wade and dred scott-—”
Yes it is...Your idea of the role of the USSC is evidence of it.....for your information the SCOTUS was never set up to legislate from the Bench.....
“But can you argue that the supreme court did make those decisions and that they became the law of the land? is not abortion legal in all 50 states per SCOTUS ruling in 1973?”
Is Dred Scott still the “Law of the Land?” What you fail to recognize is that the Court is fallible.... and over time reverses itself....Activist Judges eventually get overturned.....But if people like you would have their way that reversal would never occur.....
“I am simply stating fact. The way things work in this country is that SCOTUS determines the official meaning of the law, period.”
You still don’t get it, do you? The job of the USSC is to apply the law to specific situations that arise...not to define or redefine the law......Writing laws and defining it’s terms/meanings is a Legislative function......
In previous posts to this discussion you have shown yourself to be less than honest by posting/misstating Court cases to “prove” your twisted ideas of NBC etc.... you have no credibility with me on this or on any subject....none what so ever....
See ya Sonny....back to the sandbox with you....the other kids are waiting.....
my idea of the USSC? I was simply stating fact, not opinion. You cannot seem to seperate your view of an ideal (a supreme court that always agrees with you, originalist when convienant) with the reality of how the Supreme court actually makes decisions.
There is simply no binding requirement that they make their decision based on what the founding fathers might have written, read or been influenced by. If there is anything of this nature written in the constitution, then please cite it.
And does the Constitution of the USA not give the role of interpreting the law to the SCOTUS?
And of course I recognize the fallibility of the court. Just because I don’t agree with court decisions does not make them any less binding precedent. Is Roe v. Wade any less law because we both think it was wrongly decided?
And yes, I fully recognize that future courts can change the rulings of the current court and completely change the definition of the law and how it is applied. That is why the SCOTUS is so very important. The Judges have the power to say what the law means in a legally binding sense. You can disagree all that you want, but they have the final say.