Does the Supreme Court have to follow the laws of the land?

[kentuck]

The precedence is the law of the land for the Supreme Court. They need a very good justification in order to over-ride the precedence of the last 100 years. But that is what they did. And they were not justified in doing so. They may be judges on the highest court in the land but they did not follow precedence or the spirit of the law about campaign financing. They need to be exposed for the partisan hacks that they are. They are not beyond reproach.

[Learning Nomad]

1. They did follow the spirit of the Constitution, however, even if they didn't follow the law about

campaign financing. I'll take the Constitution and free speech any day.

[kentuck]

2. How did they follow the spirit of the Constitution...

Can you explain that?

[sharesunited]

3. The greatest liberty which society will tolerate regardless of who or what gets crushed.

[LiberalFighter]

6. The spirit of the Constitution did not include businesses or corporations.

It refers to individual rights, state rights, federal rights. But no where does it refer to business or corporation rights.

[DeadEyeDyck]

4. I think, by definition, the Supreme Court is

the law of the land.

[kentuck]

5. The Supreme Court defines the law of the land.

But their definitions have to be justified. They cannot rule tomorrow that it is legal to murder someone.

[harkadog]

7. If Congress passed a law saying it was legal to murder

The Supreme Court could rule tomorrow that law was Constitutional if there was five votes for that position.