redblueamerica.com

Joel, I think you're right that this does fundamentally have to do with the balance of the branches. I don't want to overturn Marbury v. Madison, I just want it remembered that judicial review means REVIEW, not creating new legislation. One branch legislates, another executes, and they keep an eye on each other by proposing legislation and congressional oversight. Then the judicial branch oversees it all, and makes sure the law is obeyed, especially the highest law of the land--the Constitution. Naturally, each branch over-reaches, and tries to grab more power. It's the responsibility of the other branches to make sure the balance isn't destroyed. The problem is that since the Warren court, the Supreme Court has thrown that balance off, with that annoying liberal hypocritical stance of taking what is essentially a moral stand to justify unelected judges forcing their will on the majority. And you know it's force, because if the majority wanted it, at least one of the other branches would take the stand. That's not to say that there aren't good decisions, like Brown v. Board of Education, that were unpopular. But they were also following the law, and made real change because another branch--the executive--made sure it was enforced, and stood up to the Democrats who wanted to keep segregation. On the other, Roe v. Wade forced an issue that was already changing across the country, and made it a lightning rod issue.