This is one of my wee pet peeves. Yes we can all have opinions about and debate what should or shouldn't pass constitutional muster, but if a ruling is a specific enough about something then there isn't any debate about what currently IS constitutional. I can think that a ruling was wrongly decided for various reasons, but once it's decided the law is the law.
If there is no clearly applicable ruling, I get to express opinions such as "this is clearly unconstitutional." But once they've ruled, it is what it is. I don't have to agree with the ruling, but the ruling then becomes current law.
