[inquest]

I have to beg that you excuse me for not understanding, but are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? It's becoming difficult to tell where you're coming from. I certainly never argued that the judicial branch should be in any way part of the policy-making process, as that is an inherently political process, and judges are intended to be as apolitical as possible. But it is their job to determine, in the cases that arise before them, whether the policies they're being asked to uphold are in fact consistent with the Constitution.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...But it is their job to determine, in the cases that arise before them, whether the policies they're being asked to uphold are in fact consistent with the Constitution.

Until the Warren Court started determining cases based on "is it fair".

That put them into "policy".

They have been screwed up ever since.

[Remedy]

>>>But it is their job to determine, in the cases that arise before them, whether the policies they're being asked to uphold are in fact consistent with the Constitution.<<<
I agree. It is also the job of the President and Congress to defend the Constitution as required by their respective oaths of office. If, in their judgement, S.C.O.T.U.S. rules contrary to the Constitution, the President and/or Congress have several options to mitigate the damage done by judicial decree - as described in POST#1 links.