Just a clarification: it is not "the law according to the supreme court" because there is no law about it; it is something SCOTUS invented about 40 years ago out of thin air.
I mean, if the Supreme Court says it's the law, then by definition it's "the law according to the Supreme Court". Likewise, if my friend Doug says that speeding is fine because he's a sovereign citizen, then that's by definition "the law according to Doug".
The difference here is that we determined a few centuries ago that the Supreme Court's interpretation is the one that counts, so we abide by that interpretation when trying to figure out what laws mean.
A clarification: "the law according to the supreme court" is whatever they say it is. If others disagree, (a) they can convince legislators to impeach SC justices, (b) they can try to pass an amendment overturning th SC decision, or (c) elect a president who will nominate justices likely to overturn that decision.
All these, plus in cases where the Supreme Court decisions pertain to a specific law (as opposed to constitutional interpretation or the like), there's also the much lower buy-in option of repealing a given law and passing a more clearly worded and less open-for-interpretation version of said law.
