rewrite the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as we see fit, however laudable our policy concerns. The Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power under the Constitution to enact the Adam Walsh Act in Comstock, and has never revised its construction of § 3624(e) in Johnson. See id. at 1965; Johnson, 529 U.S. at 57, 120 S.Ct. 1114. Until the Supreme Court alters its construction of § 3624(e) so as to allow a person’s term of supervised release to begin while he or she physically remains in prison, Johnson remains binding authority. See Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535, 103 S.Ct. 1343, 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983) (“Needless to say, only this Court may overrule one of its precedents.”); United States v. Qualls, 172 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Khan v. State Oil Co., 93 F.3d 1358, 1363
holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts recognizing the supreme courts interpretation of the federal feloninpossession statute as binding holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is applicable to the states and therefore the us supreme courts interpretation of the provision is binding upon this court holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it