An Example of the Folly of the supreme Court
In US v Lopez (1995), the Court found that banning guns from around schools was unconstitutional, that it was beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause.
In the dissent, Souter wrote of the "old judicial pretension [that had been] discredited and abandoned" from which "the Court extricated itself almost 60 years ago."
What he referred to was the pre-Court Packing scandal Court that was more in line with the Constitution. It was "untenable jurisprudence."
So, in Souter's view, the pre-1937 Court had been "abandoned."
But, here comes Kennedy with his concurrence with the Court saying, "stare decisis ... counsel[s] us not to call into questionthe essential principles now in place."
So, here we have Souter saying that we have to abandon the old ways, but Kennedy holding that we are bound to the old ways.
Now, the way things have been going, this nation is actually ruled by five guys in black robes (the majority). Sure, Congress and the president are involved, but the final say has been taken by the supreme Court when they usurped a power not granted them in the Constitution; judicial review.
However, these robe-clad guys are telling diametrically opposed stories. We end up with our lives being dictated by whatever OPINION sways the Court.
Obviously, not by LAW, because the LAW is the LAW, regardless of any opinion. A speed limit sign says "30 mph" and it means "30 mph," not, "oh, I think it means 42 mph..."
The same is true for the Constitution, except there are five guys who get to decide that it does mean 42 mph, regardless of the words.
If the Court was infallible, then Souter and Kennedy would not be so different in their words. They'd both agree that either decisions from pre-37 mattered or they did not.