"The people should decide, not the courts!"

[tik 🪀✨]

I was going to post this in the thread on the '16 board about potential nominees talking about the DOMA ruling, but I thought it needed to be separate.

The courts deciding instead of the people being wrong is such a strange argument, especially on a federal scale. Are the justices not appointed by someone elected by the people? Does fickle popular opinion now overrule scholarly interpretations of existing law? When it comes to matters that only affect minorities, isn't it a bad idea to give the unaffected majority the most sway? I thought the purpose of the court was to interpret the law fairly - precisely why it's supposed to be apolitical. However, though, I recall reading that shifting popular opinion does affect the supreme court somewhat.

It strikes me as a cop out by social conservatives, and I never hear anyone actually analysing it. So am I retarded and this argument isn't baseless? Please spread information on my face.

[tik 🪀✨]

People pretend that the supreme court have any kind of moral or judicial authority, when all it is; is a bunch political appointed hacks, who was able to brown-nose and lie themselves through the Senate hearings.

That does not mean that they don't have authority, that just means you don't like them or how they got there. As for moral authority, I don't hear anyone saying that. Judicial authority, though? Of course they have that. They're experts in the law who make very real decisions that affect everyone in one way or another. That's judicial authority whether or not you believe it is illegitimate.