If you stop and think about it for a moment you would realize how ridiculous that statement is. In the first place, the Supreme Court was not enacting legislation. It was ruling on the Constitutionality of the act of secession passed by the Texas legislature. A quick reading of the court's decision would have uncovered that particular fact. In the second place, by your definintion then every ruling by the Supreme Court, or any other appeals court for that matter, is ex post facto since every decision is a ruling on something that has already happened. That's the way the system works, especially the Supreme Court which cannot legally issue any sort of advisory ruling. So it's back to the drawing board for you I'm afraid.
Non-Sequitur: If you stop and think about it for a moment you would realize how ridiculous that statement is. In the first place, the Supreme Court was not enacting legislation. It was ruling on the Constitutionality of the act of secession passed by the Texas legislature. A quick reading of the court's decision would have uncovered that particular fact. In the second place, by your definintion then every ruling by the Supreme Court, or any other appeals court for that matter, is ex post facto since every decision is a ruling on something that has already happened. That's the way the system works, especially the Supreme Court which cannot legally issue any sort of advisory ruling. So it's back to the drawing board for you I'm afraid.
I've read the Texas decision, longer ago than I care to remember (birthday alert for tomorrow) and know what it was about. The problem with what you are stating is that the Supreme Court was in effect enacting legislation because there was no law or Constitutional language regarding withdrawal in the first place. The justices were creating a prohibition out of whole cloth.
When the Supreme Court rules in cases, it is ruling on acts that have already happened, but interpreting laws and/or rights that are already on the books (i.e. the Miranda decision had to do with the Fourth Amendment; Gore's attempted theft of the presidency was stopped upon the 7-2 ruling that the ever-shifting vote standards violated the Fourteenth Amendment). The Supreme Court does not have the authority to enact legislation or amend the Constitution which is what it did in the Texas ruling.