[da_chicken]

>They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system

> They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases

> Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.

[KorematsuFred]

We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way.

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings).

SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.

[gamblor956]

SCOTUS can't create new legislation. But in a common law system like the US, where court decisions are part of the legal framework, simply issuing a court ruling can result in the creation of new "law."