Low quality straw-man.
Strawman? I thought your argument was that immoral things should be illegal. Please clarify your argument.
That doesn't make them infallible and unquestionable.
It means you don't have the authority to deny the legitimacy of their decisions.
Many SCOTUS decisions have been eroded by legislative changes.
Until that happens, their decisions are law.
So your argument is that only the written law matters and morals are irrelevant?
They are irrelevant to whether or not something is the law, yes.
With each of these you seem to be trying to shift the goalposts away from what I am arguing. I am arguing that you don't get to decide what is and is not law by just saying that on a forum. The Supreme Court decides. Yes there are mechanisms to override or alter their decisions but you declaring things on a forum is not one them.
Morality is necessary
And here we are back to what you called a strawman. You're saying that things you consider immoral (Nazi Germany) should be illegal, right? If you're not saying that, I don't know what you are saying.
If things you consider immoral should be illegal then things I consider immoral should also be illegal. You evidently consider Nazi Germany to be immoral. Ok. I consider carrots to be immoral. So both should be illegal, right? That's the logical extension of what you are saying.