Kevin Gowen wrote:

> >>>>>>    To answer John's question, there are problems with this
> >>>>>> decision,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision. Do
> >>>>> you accept it as law or not?
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course I do.
> >>>
> >>> Why, if you think there are problems with the decision?
> >>
> >> Because Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court of
> >> the United States, not Kevin Gowen, the final court of appeal. See
> >> _Marbury v. Madison_ for more information on this.
> >
> > So how or why can you disagree?
>
> I don't understand the question. The fact that a person disagrees with a law
> does not make it not be law.

Even if as you seem to argue, there are problems? You accept problematic or
flawed decisions as law?

Can you kindly elaborate on this, please?

"But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the
people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

> The main drag adjacent to my street has a speed
> limit of 35 mph. I disagree with that limit; I think it should be higher.
> However, my disagreement does not change the fact that the speed limit on
> that particular segment of road is 35 mph. While my intellect is indeed
> powerful, I am still unable to alter reality solely through the use of my
> brainwaves.

No, you do not affect reality, which is also precisely why the law dictating
that 35 mph is the proper limit has nothing to do with reality of what the
proper speed for safety or any other concerns, actually is. The proper driving
speed simply is, though it may depend on variable factors such as weather and
visibility.