Magnificent friend..
Thank by sharong..

What is so great about immorality

The devil has many disguises

+Steve Sauls The Constitution doesn't work that way.  Separation of powers means there is tension between all three independent branches.  Disagreeing with the outcome doesn't invalidate the legitimacy.  The SC ruling on GW Bush's hanging chads election win in 2000 was hugely divisive.  That decision stood as legitimate despite opposition.  Living under a real dictatorship -- and there are plenty to choose from around the world  -- would perhaps put things into perspective.

2 years ago, the Supreme Court said marriage was a state issue.

2 years later, the same judges said marriage is a federal issue.

+runman1271  In 1896 the Supreme Court upheld Louisiana's Jim Crow laws upholding racial segregation as constitutional (Plessy v Ferguson).  In 1954 the Supreme Court unanimously reversed course and ruled that state sanctioned segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v Board of Education).

Times change.  Societies evolve in their understanding of justice.  The Constitution was designed to be a living document that serves the societies whose laws it interprets.  It was designed to allow flexibility so that injustices from past times could be challenged and re-addressed by posterity.   Hence the title of the post.

Is the Supreme Court the last word on any subject?  Yes for at least a few years.  But not forever.  There are two other branches of elected government that could oppose if the electorate supports the counter view but this has not often happened as far as I know, since the Supreme Court tends not to move too dramatically out of step from the views of the majority of the electorate.  Can the Supreme Court itself change course?  Yes, but new cases have to be brought through the court system and the Supreme Court has to agree to consider them.