Seems like you're conflating legal and moral. The law is exactly what the legislature and courts say it is, because it is what's written down. That doesn't mean it's always morally right.
This isn't about morals, it's about legal correctness.
If a ruling will get overturned in the future, then it's wrong today. It's enforceable until it's overturned, but it's not correct. Two judges making opposite decisions about the same question are not both right.
(I'm assuming the overturning is valid for the sake of simplicity. If it isn't then the argument is the same but mirrored.)
No, it's correct today with the best of our society's knowledge. You can't retroactively say it was wrong looking from today into the future. Only once we get to the future and something is overturned can we say the past decision wasn't correct.
But we can say that if it will be overturned, it's already wrong. (unless the overturning is the wrong one, yadda yadda)
We do not have to wait to use basic logic.
And judges do not always work on "the best of our society's knowledge". Some judges have massive biases. They make incorrect rulings that we can see, and sometimes the incorrectness is not only obvious but objective, like when multiple judges are on a case and some dissent; they can't all be right.
If being the operative word. Because we cannot tell the future we cannot operate on the assumption that it is wrong now. And I meant by society's collective knowledge so even if some judges dissent or make bad rulings, the majority agreed and it is majority agreement, not unanimous agreement, upon which society operates.
Nobody is operating on assumptions. They're giving an opinion on a ruling that doesn't directly affect them.
Like, do I just quote this entire thing? "Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution."
A wrong ruling isn't in accord with the law. A wrong ruling is binding, at least temporarily, but it's a legal failure.
A ruling being binding is the law, it literally becomes the law regardless of what you or I believe it to be. Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law. To me, it is law today if it is ruled on and can be enforced regardless of whatever happens to it in the future.
Rulings go on top of laws go on top of the constitution. And any level can be in violation of the levels below it. A law can be unconstitutional, and a ruling can be "not in accord with the law and/or the constitution".
> Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law.
Maybe. But I think my interpretation is the same as what kelnos meant.
In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
> In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
Well that's the definition I'm using so that's where we disagree it seems.
