> they only are supposed to rule on whether or not something violates the constitution or not. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, so yes, by defi

> they only are supposed to rule on whether or not something violates the constitution or not. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, so yes, by definition, they are the final arbiter of what is legal and what is not. Note that I explicitly pointed out that decisions on what is legal and what is not doesn't always line up with what is right and what is not. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court is some divine moral arbiter, just that under the laws that organize this country, there is no higher court that can tell it that it is wrong. You're free to disagree with SCOTUS decisions. I disagree with quite a few myself. The justices don't even agree with each other a lot of the times[0]! But it would be good for the republic for people to not reach for the "SCOTUS is now clearly political!" jar every time they disagree with a decision or the makeup of the court, because your political opponents will feel the same way, as well. > I'm not even sure what kind of question you want me to answer here Let me clarify: you seemed quite worried that the Trump administration would defy SCOTUS rulings. My rebuttal was that lower court judges are already doing that, because of their opposition to some of what the administration is doing; that is, they are issuing rulings that clearly contravene prior SCOTUS rulings, in defiance of the law. Prima facie, the administration isn't engaging in any behavior that their political opponents aren't engaging in, and I find the apocalyptic talk about authoritarianism, fascism, or the end of democracy in the US very unpersuasive, not to mention unhelpful and unhealthy. [0]: But perhaps not as often as you think: https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-courts-ideologically-split-rulings-occur-less-often-you-think-2106365 https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-courts-ideologically-split-...