[elfman2 on another computer]

"Congressmen and the President are still violating their oath by doing it. They're sworn to uphold the Constitution, not judicial rulings based thereupon."

And the Constitution authorizes the judiciary to decide if an action is in violation, and it has spoken.

[inquest]

It only gives the judiciary the responsibility to decide on particular cases, using the Constitution as a guide. It nowhere states that they are the final authority on what the Constitution actually says.

[William Terrell]

And the Constitution authorizes the judiciary to decide if an action is in violation, and it has spoken.

Ok, show me a federal appeals court decision where the SC has refused to hear it, or heard it and ruled as you say. Federal district courts' decisions are very limited in how they can be used as precedent.