[Non-Sequitur]

A Supreme Court decision cannot be unconstitutional since the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.

[Khepera]

A Supreme Court decision cannot be unconstitutional since the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.

Please refer to the section of my article regarding Interpreting things.

[billbears]

Ah, well there you go. Exactly where is the power the the SCOTUS uses to 'interpret' as you say, in the Constitution? Oh, I forgot, Chief Justice Marshall laying the groundwork of interpreting the document for another one of your heroes with that 'judicial review' malarky in 1803. You can't get it to say what you want, so you just fool around with the wording a bit. BTW, just because the Federal Government was not allowed to pick a religion, Jefferson himself strongly recommended the stateS pick their own official religions. But of course that was another one of those pesky state rights things that was thrown out the window over a hundred years ago.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

You will get some argument with that particularly concerning Dred Scott and Roe v Wade.

[Jim Noble]

>>since the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Constitution<<

Where, praytell?

[Tribune7]

A Supreme Court decision cannot be unconstitutional since the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.

So if the Supreme Court rules that those who post to Free Republic are no longer eligible to vote, that would be Constitutional?

Or if your neighbor forces you at gunpoint to work in his cotton field, and the Supreme Court says that's fine, that would be Constitutional?

The court has overstepped its bounds. Its moral authority is diminishing and moral authority is the only kind of authority it has.

May God grant that Bush put honorable people on the bench.