Power Line wrote:
> Deciding cases.

Ok, this is indeed succinct, but so much so it's lost all meaning. Yes
the point of the Supreme Court is to decide cases, just as the point of
Congress is to vote on legislation. But I believe this is missing the
forest for the trees.

You've stated that "contemporary liberal" thought has wrongly attributed
to the supreme court the role of "final arbiter of all the great issues
of US society", and wrongly claimed that its rulings have "long-term
impact on the life of society in general". What part of these statement
do you dispute?

I'd grant its rulings aren't "final" in an absolute sense, because
nothing in the US government is final (by design). The Supreme Court
can change its members, change its interpretation of the Constitution,
and the Constitution itself can change. But would you grant that in a
practical sense, controverisal and complex issues are often lent closure
by the unique responsibilities of the Supreme Court, typically for a
generation or more? Indeed, decisions by the Supreme Court are more
"final" than any other aspect of the US government, and that *is* by
design. Would you disagree with this?

-david