You used both a "False Analogy" in the comparison to Venezuela supreme court, and also a "Courtier's reply" in the second part of your comment. I see no arguments that address my points.

I got downvoted to oblivion, but looked at both your reply, and the previous ones all. All I see is a failure to argue my underlying point.

So I will try again...

That laws and legal scenarios can be ambiguous, contradictory, and imperfect it is only normal. These
are written by humans. But in that case, it should be to the Supreme Court to clarify the ambiguity, contradiction and imperfection of the law itself in a consistent way.

Otherwise its more of a Political Council than a Supreme Court using the word Court to shield political bias under
the disguise of interpretation of the Law.

It looks like instead, some of the dissenting opinions are used to push biased agendas. These after all, we should not forget, politically appointed judges,
( you know ...like in Venezuela... )

Most the arguments in this thread talked about different
analysis, and you mention different philosophical and political views without, it seems, realizing that is after all, at the core of my concerns. The last thing we want to see in a court is judges expanding on their philosophical and political views. Most commentators in this thread seem to indulge the court on taking those liberties under the excuse their are doing "error handling" or interpreting differently the law. They should not be interpreting differently the law, they should be clarifying the ambiguities, identifying the contradictions and referring them back to the legislative branches that can correct them. That is my core point.

It seem to have been missed by many of the commentators here that in many legal jurisdictions dissenting opinions do not exist or are frowned upon. This has NOTHING to do with lack of legal argumentation or discussion
within the courts.

Just to give another example from a different legal perspective:
=========================================================

"Susan Kiefel, Chief Justice of Australia, has expressed concern at the frequency of judicial dissents and the attention given to them by law students and legal commentators. She believes that they should be reserved for only the most important cases, and has described judges who frequently dissent as "somewhat self-indulgent". She further observed that "humorous dissent may provide the author with fleeting popularity, but it may harm the image the public has of the court and its judges".

==========================================================

I also find interesting some of the comments ( I presume from legal scholars ) in this thread, praising the smartness and clairvoyance of the court. Them seem to forget that historically the court:

1) Defined the tomato should be classified as a vegetable
not as a fruit. ( Its a fruit by the way...)
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)

2) BOWERS v. HARDWICK(1986)
No. 85-140
Upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute that
criminalized sexually active gay and lesbian
relationships.

3) Did Bush vs Gore in a completely partisan split
531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1(2000)

4) Opened the gates to all SuperPacs....
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION(2010)
No. 08-205