Supreme Court Of the United States Writes Laws, Interprets Them and Corrects Them

[From article]
Misapplying the U.S. Constitution is one thing. Usurping the constitutional powers of the federal legislature is altogether another.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has done plenty of the former during the last century. So far in this century, however, it has brazenly embarked on the latter. After its Obamacare and homosexual marriage decisions, Americans must now realize they no longer live in a democracy. They now live in a SCOTUSocracy. They are now governed by judicial rather than political decision-making.
In both its Obamacare decisions, SCOTUS rewrote federal law. In its homosexual marriage decision, however, it went even farther and actually wrote de novo federal law. SCOTUS has no constitutional power to write or rewrite federal law. In fact, SCOTUS has no constitutional power even to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law.
The net effect is this: not only has SCOTUS usurped the constitutional powers of the federal legislature, but it has now also denied Americans their most basic constitutional right – the right to democratically govern themselves through their political representatives.
[. . .]
Most Americans probably don’t realize that SCOTUS has no constitutional power to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law. That it has done so for 212 long years stems simply from its unilateral judicial assumption of that unconstitutional power in an 1803 case involving William Marbury’s dispute with James Madison over the delivery of a justice of the peace commission to which John Adams had appointed Marbury. Thus, the power of the majority of unelected lifetime judges to have recently forced Americans to purchase something they didn’t want to purchase (Obamacare) and to accept something they didn’t want to accept (homosexual marriage) is an artifact of a mere justice of the peace commission 212 years ago. From little acorns do great trees grow.
[. . .]
If the legislature “inartfully” drafted Obamacare, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself more “artfully” drafting a legislative amendment. Roberts should be impeached.
[. . .]
If the states’ same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself proscribing them. Kennedy should be impeached.
[. . .]
Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer should also be impeached, but Kennedy was the balance of SCOTUS power that resulted in constitutionally denying the states and the American people their right to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex. Besides, Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves after having both, previously and prejudicially, officiated at same-sex marriages.
[. . .]
The only possible conclusion is that the American people are too immature to preserve either their sovereignty or their Republic.
They have traded their democracy for what now amounts to a mere SCOTUSocracy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/scotuscare_scotussexuality_and_scotusocracy.html

June 29, 2015
SCOTUScare, SCOTUSsexuality, and SCOTUSocracy
By Michael L. Grable