[Radar]

The word is "precedent" but I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it.

Spelling/Grammer error. BFD

Whether or not the rulings are "bad", i.e., YOU don't like them, all previous rulings stand as precedent for lower court decisions. That judicial power is vested via the Constitution, Article 3 Sections 1 and 2.

My opinion isn't what makes a court ruling bad. How closely that court ruling sticks to the constitution is what makes it good or bad.

In effect, the Supreme Court cannot MAKE an "unconstitutional" decision. All of their decisions on Cases are Constitutional.

That's complete and utter bullshit. The Supreme Court doesn't define the constitution and just because they make a ruling doesn't make it constitutional. You don't have a single clue about the constitution if you're dumb enough to think that any decision the Supreme makes is automatically constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution (including Article 3 Sections 1 and 2) does it say that the supreme court can re-write or define the constitution through their rulings or that any decisions they make are automatically constitutional but just to be sure, I'll quote those areas so you can point out the particular part you're clearly mistaken about.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Your false and baseless claims that any decision the USSC makes is automatically Constitutional and therefore legal are ludicrous. Why not just say that government has unlimited powers? Because they don't and that includes the USSC.

Wrong again, son. If someone kills your family, you have the right to detain them. You can only kill them, when they try to kill you. Not because they might kill you.

Actually if I walk in on someone killing my family I can kill them and won't do a day in jail because it wasn't pre-meditated. And we were discussing the powers of individuals were there no government. The point is that government has only the limited powers granted by the people and those powers can never exceed the powers of individual citizens were there no government at all. And that means you'd be free to do business, and defend yourself but you couldn't violate the rights of others. If you do violate someone's rights, they're within their rights to do anything they want to defend themselves and their property including taking your life.

For instance, you may not steal another person's property. That is not your right no matter what your personal needs are. The government also may not steal since this isn't a right of individuals. Income taxation is theft plain and simple. Nobody on earth can prove any difference between armed robbery and income taxes.

Heh, actually Torrere I did specify, "Lock up". In a citizens arrest the arrested individual is turned over to the police. Not held.

Again, were there no government and we were exercising the natural rights we're born with, you would be able to lock someone up indefinitely for murdering your family.

Natural rights are with us at birth. We don't get our rights from government. And when individuals create a government that government derives its powers from those individuals and as such that government can not have any powers that individuals don't have to bestow on it.