[DiogenesLamp]

You are attempting to frame the debate on the premise that the court administers rulings in strict accordance with what is the law, and I absolutely reject that premise.

They sometimes do so, but they often adjudicate law in terms of what they prefer it to be, rather than what it is.

I reject your premise that the Supreme Court does not lie.

It lies, and far too often.

[Bull Snipe]

The Supreme Courts ruling are the law of the land. You may call them lies if that makes you feel good, but that in no way alters a cold hard fact, the Court has the last word.

[Bull Snipe]

I reject your premise that the Supreme Court does not lie.
Never claimed they didn’t.
Rule 1. The Supreme Court rulings are law
Rule 2. In case the law is wrong, refer to rule #1.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I reject your premise that the Supreme Court does not lie.
It lies, and far too often."

Your problem is that constitutionally we have to go by what the Supreme Court rules until we can elect enough representatives from our own party to change the court's makeup more to our own liking.

The only other option is what we saw last week when demonstrators attacked the actual doors of the Supreme Court hoping to force them to make more Leftist decisions.

How do you think that will work out for them?