Well if the argument is that my opinion has no force of law then I think we're in agreement.
I thought the core of the argument was whether decisions made by SCOTUS could actually be defined as unConstitutional, LOL.
Well I define them as unconstitutional if they don't follow the Constitution. Case law is not a part of the Constitution, so if it violates the Constitution I don't see why it can't be defined as unconstitutional. Though once again, I do understand that my opinion has no force of law.
But they cite a reason, no matter how dumb or illogical (sometimes) to tie it to the Constitution.
IMO, calling their decisions unConstitutional dilutes the term.