SCOTUS has no business determining private sector remunerations.
Amen. But what can you expect, the law is whatever you feel.
Well, assuming the SC was not being activists and only interpreted law, then Congress made the decision to legislate business.
Of course it is much more likely you are right and the SC was making up law like they did with Roe v. Wade in ‘73.
Then who should be the final arbitrator in then country.
Well, you'd be correct, except that that isn't what the Supreme Court was doing in this case. For better or worse, matters of "private sector remunerations," including questions concerning which employees are, and are not, exempt from overtime pay requirements, are determined by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and its implementing regulations -- i.e., federal law. You do know that, right? I mean, you've been in the workforce, haven't you?
The issue of "private sector remunerations" has been subject to federal law since the effing New Deal. That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one's point of view, but it is a thing, and has been for decades now.
Anyway, this case involved the proper interpretation of federal regulations as they applied to the respondent's particular situation. That's why the Supreme Court had the case in the first place. There had been a split in the federal judicial circuits over this issue, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve it.
By the way, in finding for the respondent Hewitt, the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had heard the case en banc and which had held for Hewitt by a 12-6 vote.
Hmm . . . imagine a world where people actually had some understanding of the things they were opining about before they formed, and offered, their opinions.