1. yes by the letter of the law the Judiciary decides interpretation of law, and yes the SC has the final word at the top of the chain
2. however, by the spirit of the law, what if the SC makes a bad decision that is unconstitutional (such as the KELO decision that had to be corrected with legislation, or the Terri Schaivo case where a Judge in a lower court gave jurisdiction to someone with a clear conflict of interest when there was no written proof she requested an end of life directive)
3. if we don't allow the PEOPLE to be the final check on govt, we risk tyranny and even contradict a similar notion of separating church from state authority if we let judges "mandate" an interpretation without check. On that note, Jefferson's writings say two different things: (a) on one hand he acknowledged that REASON was the final check on govt so it was clear he understood that govt could get abused no matter how well the laws were written to check and balance the powers and decisions (b) on the other hand he acknowledged something close to "divine right" where public officials might make decisions by God's guidance or by some other wisdom or insight other than what public opinion demands, and he recognized this divine capacity. So if you want to argue for separation of church and state, this crosses that line, even with secular govt.
And that is why we still fight for the same reasons as people were contesting church authority. Unless we have a CONSENSUS on laws and decisions, there is always a chance the wrong decisions can be made for the wrong reasons. So this is why I advocate for resolving conflicts BEFORE laws are passed, so you can tell the difference; otherwise, how can you know there isn't some conflict of interest causing a bad decision which could have been resolved a better way if you don't question and push for resolution and consensus?
If we are going to live up to the standards of "equal justice" and "equal protection" of interests under law, then consensus on policy would guarantee any issues or conflicts between beliefs or agenda would have to be resolved, in order for public policy to truly reflect and represent all people and parties equally, not favoring some over others.
Anything less than that, and you are risking ethics violations and biased policies that favor one group, interests or beliefs over others, which is technically unconstitutional by discrimination and not protecting all people's beliefs, due process and representation equally.
Just because we put up with less than equal justice, doesn't make it right.
Plenty of musicians play out of tune because they can't always be perfect, but that doesn't
change what "perfect pitch" means and what tune we really should be playing to be correct.
We tolerate compromises as long as we generally get what we want, and don't think we can do better; and only when we notice it is too far out of kilter then we start complaining. But technically, all these rulings and laws which have biases and favor one person or group's beliefs over others are unconstitutional by not representing and protecting all people equally.
It is only legal if we consent to follow them anyway; and where we do not consent, there is no basis in law to uphold it, and that is why people dissent and push to correct such flaws.
What Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that the just powers of government are derived from "consent of the governed" stands true as a natural law,
that all laws as social contracts are made binding by consent; so that where you don't have consent of the people, contracts and laws cannot be enforced except by coercion/bullying/ oppression which is not the spirit of the laws but political force against the will of the people.
That is clearly not the intent of democracy; so again, this is why I emphasize conflict resolution and consensus to prevent decisions from being pushed by political manipulation.
