Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Chant said:
Your Supreme Court's purpose, among other things, is to enforce your constitution on state and people, yes?

So, the rulings made by said court should initially be considered constitutional (further scrutiny of a ruling comes after the ruling has made methinks)

So people who disagree with the rulings of the SP without reasonable grounds are infact disagreeing with the constitution, right?



Not exactly. We are, as the cliche goes, a nation of laws, not men.

The Supreme Court is charged with interepreting the existing law, not so much making it or being it.

It is quite possible, in fact, it is encouraged in a free society, to be able to disagree or criticize our leaders, even judges when we think they are wrong in their interpretations. We also expect, as part of the checks and balances built into our form of government, that if the legislature, the body considered most accountable to the people in theory, believes that a court has interepreted a law incorrectly, that the legislature will clarify or amend the law to correct the court's mistake.

Even the constitution is subject to an amendment process, though, thankfully, it is a long and reasonably difficult one, so as to avoid snap changes.





yes, that's more or less, what I meant



Racks be to MisterJLA