[quote=equalizer]IF Sec Paulson & friends state that “In the interst of national security no dudes are allowed access to my files”, supremes would say we can not second judge, case closed.[/quote]

Yeah the problem with that assertion is that the final arbiter of whether that statute is reviewable is the court that would review it. Seriously, go back as far as Marbury vs. Madison. A major part of the SC’s mission has been asserting that they are relevant as interpreters on rules saying they can’t weigh in. EG: the elimination of habeus corpus in the statute addressing terror detainees. They have the right to interpret a law that says courts have no jurisdiction.

Further, they are literally infallible. The constitution says they are the final word on what is constitutional. By definition, they can never be constitutionally wrong. The constitution says so.

Unless the statutes are upheld explicitly, or the challenge to the stated rule is denied a hearing, Paulsons decisions can totally be reviewed.