Have you even read the Constitution?
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.BTW, where does the Constitution say that court rulings are above Congress? Or that courts should legislate from the bench? Or that political questions should be decided in court? Or that courts should make policy?
> “and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
.
The present court ruled in full accordance with the regulations that previous congresses have put in place.
.
> “BTW, where does the Constitution say that court rulings are above Congress?”
.
Do you have any clue as to what Appelate Jurisdiction is?
The court didn’t initiate this action; a state Attorney General determined that congress had exceeded its constitutional authority, and sued for restoration of constitutional protections.
.
> “Or that courts should legislate from the bench?”
.
There was no legislation from this bench. Its findings were based on the literal reading of the text of the constitution, and accepted definitions of terms.
.
> “Or that political questions should be decided in court?”
So in your opinion, discarding the constitution is just acceptable politics? Not revolution by extra-constitutional usurpation of authority?
You have clearly defined yourself as a totalitarian statist with that post.
.