Okay, this is going to sound really stupid but I'm going to ask the question anyway.

The U.S. Constitution, which includes the ammendments known as The Bill of Rights, has—as far as I know—no provision for passing laws that are in conflict with it. A change in the constitution requires a formal process of ammendment. Of course laws do get passed that conflict with the Constitution and when these become subject to judicial review they generally get struck down. Of course judge's interpretation of the intent of the Constitution can vary, especially if there is no legal precedent to guide them. Still, Supreme Court judges write lengthy opinions on their decisions that are based upon defensible legal arguments, not simply political philosophy. Even a conservative justice is capable of writing an opinion that goes against conservative interests if that is where the legal arguments lead him. Eisenhower discovered this after appointing Earl Warren. I have no doubt that liberal justices have written opinions in opposition to liberal interests as well.

Why, then, should we believe that the judiciary is now so broken that it can no longer be counted on to recognize when a law is unconstitutional? Do we now believe that the Supreme Court Justices have lost all integrity?

Just asking.

      - Mark