Sure, which is why the judicial branch reviews such decisions, and has reviewed this one and has come to the conclusion that it was justified. Just because you don't like their ruling doesn't make it not binding.
Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution.
A judicial ruling is by definition in accord with the law or constitution (because it literally becomes the law) whether you or I like it or not, if and until such a time as it is overturned.
A judicial ruling is separate from a law, and it's actually quite common for judicial rulings to be found non-constitutional (or even struck down by a normal higher court, if we're talking in general and not this particular case). In particular, only judges are bound by precedent, and even then, only precedent from their own circuit, not the entire USA. Whereas laws made by contract are binding on everyone, and they apply federally.
Rulings are a type of law, as in the general term of something written down and set together (literally, leges) that binds one of the populace with their society. As I said, until they are modified by the legislature or struck down by another court, they are the law of the land.
No, I don't think that's correct. Humans are fallible, and just because a court says that something is in accord with law/constitution, doesn't mean it actually is.
That distinction is academic, of course, because when the courts decide a certain way, then of course that's how things will play out.
Well, except when the Trump admin ignores court orders.
Seems like you're conflating legal and moral. The law is exactly what the legislature and courts say it is, because it is what's written down. That doesn't mean it's always morally right.
This isn't about morals, it's about legal correctness.
If a ruling will get overturned in the future, then it's wrong today. It's enforceable until it's overturned, but it's not correct. Two judges making opposite decisions about the same question are not both right.
(I'm assuming the overturning is valid for the sake of simplicity. If it isn't then the argument is the same but mirrored.)
No, it's correct today with the best of our society's knowledge. You can't retroactively say it was wrong looking from today into the future. Only once we get to the future and something is overturned can we say the past decision wasn't correct.
But we can say that if it will be overturned, it's already wrong. (unless the overturning is the wrong one, yadda yadda)
We do not have to wait to use basic logic.
And judges do not always work on "the best of our society's knowledge". Some judges have massive biases. They make incorrect rulings that we can see, and sometimes the incorrectness is not only obvious but objective, like when multiple judges are on a case and some dissent; they can't all be right.
If being the operative word. Because we cannot tell the future we cannot operate on the assumption that it is wrong now. And I meant by society's collective knowledge so even if some judges dissent or make bad rulings, the majority agreed and it is majority agreement, not unanimous agreement, upon which society operates.
Nobody is operating on assumptions. They're giving an opinion on a ruling that doesn't directly affect them.
Like, do I just quote this entire thing? "Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution."
A wrong ruling isn't in accord with the law. A wrong ruling is binding, at least temporarily, but it's a legal failure.
A ruling being binding is the law, it literally becomes the law regardless of what you or I believe it to be. Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law. To me, it is law today if it is ruled on and can be enforced regardless of whatever happens to it in the future.
Rulings go on top of laws go on top of the constitution. And any level can be in violation of the levels below it. A law can be unconstitutional, and a ruling can be "not in accord with the law and/or the constitution".
> Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law.
Maybe. But I think my interpretation is the same as what kelnos meant.
In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
> In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
Well that's the definition I'm using so that's where we disagree it seems.
