Sounds like it, if you view all USSC decisions as valid. Does that include decisions based on cherry-picked foreign law?
“Constitutionally they do have that power.”
No, they don’t. They assumed that power themselves. This “sole arbiter of the Constitution” thing. Congress is too cowardly to call them on it. Constitutionally, they have very LITTLE power beyond what is granted by Congress. They (read the Federalist Papers) were intended to be the weakest branch, not the strongest.
I'm merely pointing out that nowhere in the Constitution does it say a Supreme Court decision needs your approval to be valid.
Does that include decisions based on cherry-picked foreign law?
For example?
No, they don’t. They assumed that power themselves. This “sole arbiter of the Constitution” thing. Congress is too cowardly to call them on it. Constitutionally, they have very LITTLE power beyond what is granted by Congress. They (read the Federalist Papers) were intended to be the weakest branch, not the strongest.
Marshall summed it up in his Marbury v. Madison decision, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." My question to you is if not the Supreme Court then who? Would you have the court not be a branch at all? Do away with the checks and balances altogether? Let Congress and the President do what they wish because, after all, that's how Jeff Davis wanted it?