If the Supreme Court can not be flat out wrong, or in other words if the Constitution really is whatever the court says it is, then if the Court decided that one of its members was, according to the constitution, a divine king that had to be worshiped and obeyed by everyone, than that court decision could not be considered wrong (at worst it would be an odd interpretation) and the constitution really would say that Justice so and so is a divine king. It doesn't matter that they ARE the ones to whom the decision falls. That decision can be wrong. It might be treated as if it was right (although it probably wouldn't be in the extreme example I gave above) but it would still be wrong.
Of course that is ridiculous example. The court would never make such a decision, and if it did the decision would not be enforced or supported by the other branches of the government. It was intentionally an extreme example. If a principle is asserted as being universally correct then it has to be correct for extreme and ridiculous examples as well. If it isn't universally correct, than my point that the Constitution is not whatever the court says it is, is correct.
Turning things around a bit I'll mention some cases where there is some ambiguity in the Constitution. For example the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. "Cruel and unusual" is a somewhat subjective term. If the USSC said that the constitution forbade capital punishment for any reason, because it was "cruel and unusual; I would say its an incorrect decision, but I don't think it would rise to the level of "flat out wrong". This is also an example of where "societal changes that could never have been envisioned in the 18c" can change the meaning of the constitution. In general I think if society changes so that part of the constitution no longer serves us well, the proper response is an amendment, not a court decision that follows the new societal consensus but doesn't follow the constitution. But if society changed to the point where an overwhelming majority (something like 99.9%) were shocked and horrified by even the most humane form of capital punishment against even the most horrible, repeat offender, criminals, then capital punishment could then reasonably be considered cruel and unusual.
Another example might be found in the 2nd amendment. Not IMO in the area where the most common dispute arises. To me it is clear that the right is an individual right, the "right of the people". The amendment does not mention rights of states or of the militia. The slight ambiguity is in the meaning of "firearm". In most cases this will be clear, a nuclear bomb is not a firearm, nor is a swimming pool. A bolt action rifle is a firearm. But does a belt fed machine gun fall under firearm for this amendment? Does a grenade launcher? That seems to me to be a judgment call. My own judgment would be maybe on the machine gun, and no on the grenade launcher. If in the future you have guns that electromagnetically accelerate bullets, or if we use lasers, or something else other then a gunpowder propelled bullet, it would also be a judgment call about whether those are "firearms".
Generally I would say that any decision that doesn't follow the words of the constitution was flat out wrong. That includes any "emanations of the penumbra". That still leaves a lot of room for judgment as some words or phrases have unclear or subjective meanings.
In the particular case of the coach and the prayers on the football field, if the coach did initiate and lead the prayer, then I might still disagree with the decision, but I could not call it "flat out wrong". If he required students to pray in order to play (which he apparently did not do), then I would agree with the decision as he would then be making a formal policy in support of religion, and even to an extent compelling religious observance. If a state employee is compelling religious observance as part of his official duties than that would be a case of establishment of religion.
Edit - Actually looking in to the case a bit, it seems that this wasn't a court decision (although it was probably based on previous decisions). It was a school district who required him not to lead students in prayer. I think it is there prerogative to do so, at least at official school functions of any kind. I don't think it is their business if he leads a prayer group with students (or even entirely consisting of members of his team) off school property, on his own time, then I think it is none of the schools, or the school districts, or the courts, business. But whether or not it is constitutional for him to lead prayers before a game, it is the school and the districts prerogative to control how he interacts with students in his official capacity as a coach. The school district in this case acted based on its interpretation of the law and court decisions based on the law but it was not directly compelled by a court.
Tim |
