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.
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 generalmatters; for that, you go to the legislature. You go to the court to resolve particulardisputes. 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.
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.