Oboehner:
Again with the single case court opinions as if they are relevant to others beside the ones in that case, hmmm...

Ambulance Chaser:
That's because they are, and your obstinate refusal to accept that reality does nothing to change it.

Citing case law is LITERALLY Day 1 material in law school. Citing cases is just about as natural to a lawyer as breathing. Any lawyer who doesn't cite cases regularly and abundantly is simply not practicing law.

The position you take is not just wrong, it's fractally wrong. It demonstrates not just an ignorance of the law in this case, but an ignorance of even the most fundamental basics of how law operates.

To attempt to put this into some kind of perspective, your position is the equivalent of playing Tetris and announcing that you're the winner because you got to the top of the screen faster than anyone else. Or thinking you won a round of golf because you got the highest score.

TheLastHonestLawyer:
And to build on what Ambulance Chaser said, I was taught to look for the cases that contained numerous case citations themselves. You look for the most recent, most supported decision to bolster your case.

Oboehner:
Let's see, reality...

Article I: Legislative
Section 1 -
"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."

"Citing case law is LITERALLY Day 1 material in law school." Can you say the inmates are running the asylum?
Do explain how non-law is binding though, I'm all a-twitter with anticipation!

TheLastHonestLawyer:
OK, I'll use small words.

Courts do not make law.

Courts examine the law.

They use the Constitution to examine laws.

The Constitution is the highest law in our nation.

This includes the Amendments.

Laws cannot violate the Constitution.

If the judge(s) find the law violates the Constitution, they issue a ruling.

That ruling says the law cannot be enforced.

It does not remove the law from the state laws.

It just neuters it.

States can appeal this decision.

But once SCOTUS has made a decision (or refused to hear the case) it is over. The last appellate ruling stands.

So, what can the state do?

They can try to rewrite the law to address what the courts found unconstitutional.

They can push for a Constitutional Amendment.

Or they can accept that they lost and move on.

This, by the way, is the reason Roy Moore lost his seat on the Alabama Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage were in violation of the 14th Amendment. Moore tried to order county clerks to ignore the order. His own state's review board kicked him out of office for that.

Oboehner:
OK, I'll use small words too.
Only laws are binding, court cases are not either.
Courts gave themselves the power to examine laws.
The courts examining laws is not in the Constitution.
The Constitution is the highest law in our nation.
This includes the Amendments (the Tenth as well).
Laws cannot violate the Constitution.
If the judge(s) find the law violates the Constitution, they issue a ruling, which is as pretty as Billy's kindergarten drawing on the fridge.
That ruling says the law cannot be enforced, but they have no constitutional power to say that.
The ruling is the only thing neutered.
States don't have to appeal this decision as it is unconstitutional.
But once SCOTUS has made a decision (or refused to hear the case) it is over. The last appellate ruling stands ONLY over the single case that came from a lower court.

TheKingOfRhye:
"The last appellate ruling stands ONLY over the single case that came from a lower court."

That line of thinking makes no sense to me. When the Supreme Court rules, in an appeal that is brought before them, that a law is unconstitutional, how can it only apply in a single case then? The 14th Amendment gives equal protection of the law (the existing laws, not the laws you say they supposedly create) to all citizens.

Oboehner:
And?

TheKingOfRhye
And when the court rules the law applies in a certain way in one case, because of the 14th, it applies that way to everyone else.

Oh, and judicial review is in the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In other words, unconstitutional laws don't apply. And if you're going to tell me next that it isn't the court's job to interpret laws...well, I'm no legal expert, but I don't understand how a court system could exist without doing that. If nothing else, they have to deal with old laws, and interpret how they would apply to situations that the people who made them would have never imagined.

Oboehner:
"And when the court rules the law applies in a certain way in one case" is ONLY relevant to that case as anything else would be a usurpation of power and unconstitutional - rendering the rest of your argument null and void. In other words, unconstitutional laws or actions don't apply.