venusrider saidSCOTUS is not capable of giving anything. It merely offers opinions. I have an opinion, just like everyone else.
So your use of the word "opinion" parallels how a fundamentalist misunderstands the scientific word "theory" as in the "theory of evolution" or the "theory of gravitation" etc.
So you would argue that in theory (haha), or rather in how you might understand theory, everyone has an opinion like everyone has an asshole and so by that you feel privileged in thinking a SCOTUS opinion is just another asshole.
Here's your constipated problem sitting on that, um, opinion: not every asshole is binding.
Just as scientific theory has a different meaning than how a layman might use the word theory, here's what opinion means to law:https://www.law.cornell.edu/wiki/lexcraft/layer_two_overview_cases_orders_opinions_decisions_and_writings
The words "decision", "order", "opinion", and "judgment", and even "case" tend to be used both loosely and interchangeably to mean either the act that delivers a court's ruling in a particular case, or the text of the ruling itself...
...An opinion is a general term describing the written views of a judge or judges with respect to a particular order. Not all orders--including important orders, and including in both the district courts and the courts of appeals--have opinions. A single order by a court might produce a zero or more majority opinions, zero or more concurring opinions, zero or more dissenting opinions, and zero or more opinions that concur in part and dissent in part. It is also possible that a decision produces other documents that are not opinions -- for example, a syllabus, appendix, or summary describing all the other documents related to the decision.
SCOTUS isn't capable of giving anything, huh? Merely their interpretation, laid down in orders of law as to the applicability of the Constitution of the United States of America.http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/briefoverview.aspx
Constitutional Origin. Article III, §1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790.
And where do these powers apply?
Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., and various special statutes
That you have a problem with that is just your opinion. Their opinion upon, say, your right to express your opinion, is never just their opinion.
Their opinion gives you what rights you enjoy to opine your opinion.
Just as, and not merely in theory, their opinion can endow us our human rights nationwide. That's their job. And if they fuck that up this time around, I would not be surprised to see martyr blood spill upon their steps.