Early in its history the Supreme Court of the United States found it had a the power to declare laws null and void because they were contrary to the Constitution. This came from a reading of the Federalist Papers and, although objected to at the time, has come to be accepted as a legitimate power. However, that power is based solely upon the comparison of a law (or other matter) against the Constitution.
The on-going debate has been between the strict and loose construction. The former holds the Constitution should be read in light of what was meant at the time. The latter holds it can be interpreted in sort of a "what they would have said if they lived today" mode.
However there has become a common sense perception, regardless of how widely disavowed, that the Supreme Court has become political in nature. That it has added a new criteria, that of current public opinion as a criteria. It is excused as saying the Court watches the election returns.
There is a minor problem with this. If the court has any criteria other than the Constitution, strict or loose, it has no right to the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Laws are only internal to the Constitution and the powers the people have delegated to the government and nothing more.
People remain the supreme authority not only over all of government but specifically of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not a pantheon established on earth to be the ultimate arbiter of the country. It is rather a tool the people have established within the government as one of three branches of government to keep that government under control.
That the Supreme Court may be political is a direct violation of its intended function. That function was not and is not to determine the validity of laws based upon their party affiliation but upon the Constitution as written not as politically interpretated.
When any group is set inviolate above the people the people have the duty to overthrow it. It is incumbent upon the people to exercise their supreme authority over the government and reject its findings. There exists a constitutional mechanism for such rejection. Should that mechanism be found unusable because the ballot box does not work then the people are still faced with their duty.
"The Supreme Court says" is a woeful tiger to be riding. It has no power other than what the people have given it. That power was to aid in restraining the other two branches as with the Triumverate in ancient Rome. But when two or more branches conspire by means of party loyalty to determine the course of the government then the people are required to perform their duty.
We have had this kind of Supreme Court in this country since it determined the interstate commerce clause meant a diner in the middle of a state. In so doing it declared the rest of the Constitution superfluous. By such construction everything can in some way affect interstate commerce and is thus open to the control of government whether or not it was ever delegated to the government.
It is difficult to argue the Supreme Court is impartial when it finds for abortion as a right of privacy between doctor and patient and can not find financial records as a matter of personal papers as specifically stated in the 4th amendment to be safe from the Internal Revenue Service. This is not to pick nits here, I am quite in favor of privacy in all matters including abortion. I use it to point out how the same issue can divide us, the people.
Put politics aside. Will you accept the termination of the IRS in exchange for abortion on demand? Will you put aside your political differences in order to get the government out of our lives? Completely, forever!
That is what I am asking. If we do not have a united front, if we let partisan politics divide us to the benefit of the politicians, we are lost. It will be us against them until the end of time or of this country which ever comes first.