They disagree with Presser. Big deal. All inter-jurisdictional cases come from courts disagreeing with each other.
The courts today disagree with Scott v. Sanford and thousands of other prior decisions. Does than then make those decisions right or wrong?
The major problem is that the majority of the people on SCOTUS don’t agree with you. That doesn’t make them corrupt, that simple means we must work harder to elect a president who will appoint judges to our liking.
Presser is SCOTUS, supposed to be binding precedent on ALL of the lower federal courts. This isn't an interjurisdictional squabble, this is the court system engaging in blatant misrepresentation of binding precedent.
-- The major problem is that the majority of the people on SCOTUS don't agree with you. --
They don't even agree with themselves. That's my point. One day they say "if a weapon has a use in the military, then it is in the ambit of the 2nd amendment, and the law is unconstitutional" (Miller, 1937 IIRC). Then next day they read that and assert "Miller says a weapon has to be in common civilian use to be in the ambit of the 2nd amendment."
Well, which does Miller say? It can't be both. And if a court can't follow it's own statements, isn't that pretty much making it up as you go along, akin to anarchy?
-- ... that simple means we must work harder to elect a president who will appoint judges to our liking. --
See Souter, Harriet Miers (than goodness the public put the kibosh to that), etc.
Scalia is the one who changed the meaning of Miller - and he's also the one who upheld an expansive view of the Commerce clause (Raich) in such a way that SCOTUS is apt to find federal mandating of commercial activity (purchase health insurance) to be constitutional.
I think the system is like a house of cards or a beetle-infested timber. Not much can be done about it, just sit back and enjoy the show.
Actually, yes it does. Especially when the Constitution is REALLY damn clear on the limits.