[Publius Valerius]

And here I was thinking that the lack of judicial deference to legislative acts was the problem.

Heh. No, that's only the problem when the Supreme Court strikes down a law that you like. The Supreme Court's unwillingness to slap Congress down is ALSO a major problem, but only when Congress passes a law that you don't like.

I hope this clears things up.

[OhioAttorney]

Thanks. And here I was thinking that the lack of judicial deference to legislative acts was the problem. I have a lot to learn.

Heh. No, that's only the problem when the Supreme Court strikes down a law that you like. The Supreme Court's unwillingness to slap Congress down is ALSO a major problem, but only when Congress passes a law that you don't like.

Exactly. The real problem is 'Supreme Court opinions we don't agree with'.

But you're not supposed to say that. What you're supposed to say is that all such opinions are by definition 'unconstitutional' and therefore evidence of 'judicial tyranny' by 'black-robed terrorists' who are turning America into a 'judicial oligarchy' through their 'judicial activism'.

And you're supposed to make sure you work in that last phrase ('judicial activism') even when the decision at issue is one that showed undue deference to the legislature or the executive -- like Korematsu, which made Mark Levin's shortlist of 'activst' decisions despite the fact that it involved the SCOTUS upholding a probably-unconstitutional executive order from FDR.

All clear now?