|
ummmm.......... not exactly, ratbastid. In theory judges discover law, not make it (there are lots of reasons why that has to be so that are critical to maintaining the rule of law in this country). And you're wrong about acts of Congress: they are the law unless and until there is a constitutional challenge that strikes one down. And those are very, very, very rare. No significant percentage of legislation is even challenged, much less struck down. Legislation is presumed constitutional under longstanding rules of interpretation.
I think part of the issue people have trouble with is that a lot of Supreme Court decisionmaking is not so much what the policy should be as who gets to decide. Sometimes a law is poorly written, or doesn't mean what some people think, so Congress gets to rewrite it. Sometimes a state should make a decision rather than the feds. Sometimes a decision is for Congress rather than an agency, or the Pres rather than Congress, or an agency rather than a court. Focussing too much on who wins and who loses in a particular case distracts you from looking at what is really being decided. Don't confuse a federalism decision with the result of the case.
Most cases don't implicate the limitations on governmental power (mainly in the bill of rights). Heck, most of the Supreme Court's work is in interpreting statutes - i.e. trying to figure out what Congress did. And since Congress isn't exactly the most coherent body, the answer isn't always one that people like - but, in such cases Congress can always fix the perceived problem (as it did with the Ledbetter case, for example).
|