> Your question about the supreme Court by its nature is invalid. That's an interesting comment - "invalid". I was asking for your opinion when I asked "Do yo

> Your question about the supreme Court by its nature is invalid. That's an interesting comment - "invalid". I was asking for your opinion when I asked "Do you consider it is the role of SCOTUS to be the moral arbiter of women's bodies?" How can it be invalid to ask for your opinion? Perhaps you meant it would be irrelevant what anybody's opinion was of the role of SCOTUS because in your schema, the role of SCOTUS is prescribed as "Supreme Court interprets or applies the laws under the constitutional framework." For you, perhaps that is absolutely clear and precise, and not at all subjective or political. But have you considered that SCOTUS has discretion about which cases it chooses to hear? In this case, the Texas legislature has passed a law that the applicant tried to challenge as unconstitutional. Is the legislation unconstitutional, and if so, how? We don't know, and we haven't been informed at all by SCOTUS because it decided 5-4 not to hear this case.