The Supreme Court Is Not The Final Say On The Constitution

The judiciary’s rulings are not the supreme law of the land, even rulings from the Supreme Court. The judiciary is not the only or even final arbiter on the Constitution.

Further, if the Supreme Court rules one way, it is likely to rule that way again, so continuing to push a law or policy that contradicted a previous decision may be futile. The precedent the court sets effectively prevents the same issue from arising, because lower courts will rule in accordance with that precedent.

This is an article from a law school student at George Mason University and fellow Texan.

He explains it much better than I ever have. Amazing what fresh eyes can see.

Well done young man.


Thomas Jefferson further noted in a letter to William Jarvis, “to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions…would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

1 Like

They just overturned labor laws that where from 1972…so i disagree…laws change because the court shifts.

If roberts goes for a death by a 1000 cuts with abortion the student is also wrong.

If you want to live in a dictatorship, there are plenty of countries out there that are available.

Was there ever a time when Congress put the SCOTUS in check?

And here I though public universities where liberal indoctrination factories.

1 Like

Of course he would say that…because he had a long-running battle with John Marshall, who whupped his ass.


1 Like

If I understand it right, this individual wants the Supreme Court to only settle specific matters, not change law.

So for example I sue the government saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional. It goes to the SCOTUS and they say it is unconstitutional and I don’t have to pay the extra tax.

I think this guy is saying that doesn’t change the law. The individual mandate isn’t struck down. Now everyone who doesn’t want to pay the individual mandate has to sue as well.

Which sounds pretty stupid to me.


The only way is to pass a Constitutional amendment.

It’s absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of the common law basis of our judicial system. From his closing:

You don’t go to the courts to solve general matters; for that, you go to the legislature. You go to the court to resolve particular disputes. For the health of the nation and the rule of law, it is critical that we stop using courts as weapons to shape law and view them as avenues of recourse to resolve limited cases and controversies.

This is completely ignoring the fact that the decisions on particular disputes can have broader implications or applications on general matters that encompass those particulars.

At any rate—at least the first portions that I skimmed—he’s making a terribly pedantic argument:

Still, what the Court produces is not law, but a determination on how it interpreted an existing law for the purpose of settling a specific case or controversy. When the same issues and facts arise, they can be settled based on that precedent. These rulings are legitimate and important, but are not the final word on policy matters for the whole country.

Yes, and no. Once decided, it’s binding precedent and barring any significant changes (court composition, massive shift in public sentiment, amendments, etc), for all intents and purposes it is the final word.


XVI Amendment.

Abortion and gun-restriction voters don’t agree with this message.

1 Like

I believe it would certainly depend on how the Supreme Court couches their ruling.

Yes there has been litigation passed to override scotus decisions.

1 Like

There outta be more of that instead of fear-mongering over judges.

He is learning what they teach at George Mason.

Now… who set up the George Mason Economics and Law colleges?

Right. Whats the point if they cant end a law

A law student’s opinion on a conservative website. That’s a rock hard foundation to build a case. :roll_eyes:


Dumb. This kid thinks he’s on to something profound because he just discovered the court system. The US Sup Ct is not a trial court. It has a unique purpose and existence and is expressly built into the Constitution as one of the 3 branches of government, and is integrally part of the system of checks and balances.


He should probably ask for his money back.

1 Like