If a ruling will get overturned in the future, then it's wrong today. It's enforceable until it's overturned, but it's not correct. Two judges making opposite decisions about the same question are not both right.
(I'm assuming the overturning is valid for the sake of simplicity. If it isn't then the argument is the same but mirrored.)
But we can say that if it will be overturned, it's already wrong. (unless the overturning is the wrong one, yadda yadda)
We do not have to wait to use basic logic.
And judges do not always work on "the best of our society's knowledge". Some judges have massive biases. They make incorrect rulings that we can see, and sometimes the incorrectness is not only obvious but objective, like when multiple judges are on a case and some dissent; they can't all be right.
Like, do I just quote this entire thing? "Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution."
A wrong ruling isn't in accord with the law. A wrong ruling is binding, at least temporarily, but it's a legal failure.
> Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law.
Maybe. But I think my interpretation is the same as what kelnos meant.
In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
Well that's the definition I'm using so that's where we disagree it seems.