It is quite common, nowadays, for historic and important decisions that have made their circuitous way to the Supreme Court, for the public, to wait with bated breath for that decision, typically under the impression, that whatever decision the Supreme Court makes will be binding upon the entire country, for these nine justices are apparently the sole determinates of law, in addition to by their decisions, essentially not just clarifying law, but making new law, which thereby becomes the law of the land. If, this was the way that the Constitution was supposed to work, than America does not really have a need for either the legislative branch, which makes the laws of the land in accordance with Constitutional limits, or even the Executive branch, which carries out the laws of the land, for if, the Supreme Court, depending upon who makes up that court, can dictate what, in their majority opinion, the law is or is not, and have that opinion, thereby have the force of law, to which all lesser courts must obey, as well as the instruments of justice must then so accommodate, than the people, their legislature representatives, and the executive that has been elected into office by the people, all are actually under the collective thumb of nice unelected Supreme Court justices.
In point of fact, the Supreme Court, whether they get a particular decision Constitutionally right or Constitutionally wrong, that decision should only be binding on that particular case as rendered, but should not be considered to be binding or precedent setting unless that decision as delivered by the court is basically unanimous, as well as consistent with similar court decisions previously determined, and does not, in itself, create a whole new dynamic, previously unseen. The reason that this must be true, is that the Supreme Court, itself, has on many occasions, rendered a decision, only to reverse such a decision at a later time, because the decision was made via partisan bias, or sectional bias, or any sort of bias or misinterpretation, which in whole is inconsistent with the Constitution to begin with. That is to say, factious decisions by the Supreme Court, that upset the body politic, must be carefully construed, for when the Supreme Court takes it upon itself, that it is the sole arbiter of what the law of the land is, how it is interpreted, and what it represents, than the people are no longer masters of their own destiny, but instead have a Constitution which is in principle, mutable without amendment, by the unelected Supreme Court.
Therefore, those that believe that the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land, as a law unto itself, have it Constitutionally wrong, as the Supreme Court has no other duty than to determine whether a particular legislated or applied law is in accordance with the Constitution on a case-by-case basis, in which, such decisions over a long period of time, when consistent, set precedent for the laws of the land. Additionally, those that believe that the Supreme Court must by its very nature, determine whether laws duly passed by the legislative branch are constitutional or not, and thereby are enforceable or not, in which it is the Supreme Court that than decides whether such legislated law must then be voided, have granted onto the Supreme Court a power that no other branch of government has, and is inconsistent with a government of the people, in which it is those people, that determine the nature of the government that they so desire, in accordance with the Constitution. To wit, the Supreme Court, cannot ever, nor is it now, the final word, of what the law is or is not, for that final word, is actually the Constitution, itself, of which, the sole interpretation of this Constitution, is not for the Supreme Court, alone, to say, but instead, is a matter, of the whole, for the people, their legislative representatives, and their elected executive office holder for each has their part to play in conjunction with the judiciary as to the correct understanding of the Constitution.