Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> Yes. The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law even if Kevin
> >> Gowen finds them to contain problems.
> >
> > But it is not merely you saying so. You have cites. Are they valid or
> > not?
>
> I don't understand the question.

It is not Kevin's "findings" that there are problems. There either are
problems, or there are not.

> >>> You accept
> >>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
> >>
> >> Yes. What other choice is there?
> >
> > Obeying or doing what is actually right.
>
> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a court
> decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually right.

If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in other nations
or forms of government.

> Got it.

Why would that be a problem? It was you who posted "It is indeed true that
'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact
serve only to oppress.'"

> >>> 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."
> >>
> >> What sort of elaboration would you like?
> >
> > Is the Supreme Court the law or not?
>
> Asked and answered.

So what does "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."
mean?

> > But the decision of the court and what is written in the Constitution
> > do not determine reality.
>
> They most certainly determine the reality of what the law is.

The law does not determine reality of a single proper speed limit on your
street, any more than it determines whether anything else is proper.