“To decide legal issues that are incapable of being resolved, for one reason or another, by the political process.” - PV
That is just absurd. This country is a republic, not a democracy.
This is getting into issues well beyond this thread, but I don't believe that the two concepts are incompatible. If, for instance, the majority voted to restrict the participation of certain groups in the political process, that would be an issue worthy of supreme court review because the political process could not adequately resolve the issue (because the offended group has been barred from participating in the process). What I said before was perhaps inartful. Maybe I should have said that the Court can become involved essentially to ensure fair play in the political process, but only in those circumstances in which the political process couldn't adequately resolve the problem itself. For instance, if a state legislature votes to make a public school male-only, I would contend that the courts would have no business in reviewing that action because the political process still works and the public is free to take action to make a change in the legislature, if necessary. If the same legislature voted to deny the franchise to women, that would be an issue for the courts because that affects the fair play of the political process. I think this approach is one of the few ways that a court can take cases that don't veer into the realm of "judicial activism." It becomes far too difficult in the former category of cases to make decisions without injecting personal political bias, and I think that is a problem with the judiciary.