That’s allowed in America.

Yes, legal hobbyists are allowed to disagree with Supreme Court decisions.

That doesn’t mean they are right, in fact it almost certainly means they are wrong.

So yes, in America you’re allowed to be wrong.

WOW, that is a remarkably bad argument. Straight-up appeal to authority, condescension and social scorn.

It ignores that all SCOTUS cases are seriously contentious and most were differently decided by multiple appeals courts on different sides of the argument. Then, very few cases are decided 9-0; there is almost always at least one, if not multiple dissenting opinions among the SCOTUS justices themselves.

They are not all wrong, they were on the losing side of the argument.

Before this court, it might be argued that these were at least settled law, but since the current court has obviously decided that precedent is no longer important, the decisions are simply the current state of the law.

At least bring an actual argument on the point of the topic, not "that piddling hobbyist must be wrong (to agree with the dissenters on a now-notoriously fickle SCOTUS itself). Sheesh.

> That’s allowed in America.

Not only is it allowed in America, but its is likely sometimes correct, insofar as a matter of interpretation can be said to be (at a minimum, the Supreme Court has been wrong, one time or another) as the Supreme Court has reversed itself on the meaning of Constitutional provisions.

SCOTUS is a political body. Those decisions were promised during the 2016 presidential political campaign and he delivered.

It’s not like they’re scientists.

Two years ago, I would not have made that argument, as SCOTUS actually practiced their stated policy of stare decisis — The doctrine or principle that precedent should determine legal decision making in a case involving similar facts — SCOTUS overturning it's own decisions was a rare event.

However, in the last two years, the court has repeatedly overturned, either explicitly or by the shadow docket, many large precedents set by the same court.

The impetus from the court politically skewed by senate leadership (note Merrick Garland, Amy Cohen Barrett), and the nature of the cases taken by the court and these reversals is obviously political.

This opens up as fair game all prior SCOTUS decisions, as they are obviously not settled law, but open to change on a whim. The SCOTUS has degraded its status from a determiner of settled law to a set of umpires for the current inning.

So, yes, it is entirely reasonable to question prior SCOTUS decisions, especially now.