[jamese777]

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point entirely.

james777’s logic— as best I can reconstruct it— is as follows:

SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of law within the US.

therefore

No one can order SCOTUS to do anything.

[check: I hope we all agree on this]

Now: what is wrong with the above logic??

I invite you to go back and think about what I wrote from a logical perspective— and not about whatI appear (to you personally) to be doing. IOW, for logic’s sake, it is easier to think logically when one entirely removes the personal and the incidental (eg you appear - he appears - she appears - they appear) from one’s thinking.

---

Perhaps you could provide an historical example of when the Supreme Court was ordered to take an action by some external authority over the course of the last 220 years of American history? That would assist a great deal with the logical argument you are attempting to make.

[SteveH]

Perhaps you could provide an historical example of when the Supreme Court was ordered to take an action by some external authority over the course of the last 220 years of American history? That would assist a great deal with the logical argument you are attempting to make.

What logic demands a publicly recognized precedent to a logical argument? If every reasoning requires a precedent, in fact, SCOTUS would have no formal (legal) responsibilities since it deals with setting (legal) precedents. Logic should inherently stand by itself, regardless of existence or non-existence of any precedent. If so, every logical argument may be considered invalidated since logic is manmade and prior to man, has no precedent known to man.

And I am making (not "attempting to make") an logical argument. If someone is implying otherwise, the burden is on them to provide logic (not just questions) in refutation.