The supreme court only job is to tell us what the constitution really means. That's why putting idiots that don't believe in the constitution on the supreme court has become the trendy goal.
Yes but many scholars argue that Supreme Court rulings do not write law nor do they apply to any parties other than the parties involved in the case. For example, A private ruling on a particular woman's abortion does not broadly apply to all women's freedom to get abortions nationwide. And that ruling which ruled over us for 50 years was based on a LIE because She never even got the fucking abortion!
Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, never had the abortion she was seeking. She gave her baby girl up for adoption, and now that baby is an adult.
Plus, there's so many supreme court rulings that contradict other supreme court rulings.
Also, the whole concept of precedence being binding is bullshit.
The supreme court only job is to tell us what the constitution really means. That's why putting idiots that don't believe in the constitution on the supreme court has become the trendy goal.
Yes but many scholars argue that Supreme Court rulings do not write law nor do they apply to any parties other than the parties involved in the case. For example, A private ruling on a particular woman's abortion does not broadly apply to all women's freedom to get abortions nationwide. And that ruling which ruled over us for 50 years was based on a LIE because She never even got the fucking abortion!
Plus, there's so many supreme court rulings that contradict other supreme court rulings.
Also, the whole concept of precedence being binding is bullshit.