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.
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.
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.