> Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. No it isn't, and please stop lying. > Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and th

> Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. No it isn't, and please stop lying. > Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and the democractic process of government. If they say a statue means A rather than B, it is then the job of elected representatives to clarify they mean B. Or else you believe 9 unelected people should govern the country. Congress often modifies law in light of SC rulings to make these clarifications. I don't recall using the word moral. In this case, their interpretation is not supported by the text or intent of Congress. When they do that, it's called legislating from the bench, which are you are okay with, because in your mind SCOTUS can never be wrong. > that there are many ways to universally challege this order that do not require extraordinary powers to be given to district court judges, powers never given to them by congress. There is nothing extraordinary about it. They've been doing it for centuries, but strangely SOCTUS chooses this moment to break with history. And again, you're fine with it, because "rule of law" does not mean anything to you. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. If the executive branch is not constrained by the law (as in your reading, judges cannot tell the executive what to do), then the executive branch is above the law. That's a monarchy. We fought a war to avoid just such an outcome. EDIT: I feel like you're arguing with someone else. You respond to arguments that I didn't make and ignore the arguments that I do. You've been so conditioned to performatively support "your side" that you can't even bring yourself to read what the other side says. I never suggested that SCOTUS has an obligation to behave "morally", only that that must interpret the law and the Constitution, and then I pointed out cases where they have failed to do that.