Is the self-appointed power of judicial review by the US Supreme Court a serious problem in the USA, or is it only a symptom of a problem?
Judicial review appears prima facie to be a lead-in to totalitarian impulses by a small, unelected group of 'seers', if you will - a supposedly wise counsel who not only know what's best for the country, by interpreting in an almost mystical fashion our Constitution and the intent therein of the small group of Englishmen who wrote it, but who are also willing to impose a neutral Solomonic judgment on a variety of issues that would be incomprehensible to those constitutional creators.
The fact that we have and have had Supreme Court justices of all political persuasions who have been neither wise nor neutral only adds to this feeling that leaving such weighty pronunciamentos in their hands is not only _not_ in the spirit of American democracy, but possibly dangerous to our democracy.
But is this really the problem, or is it simply yet another simplistic sleight-of-hand by one or more power elites in this great nation to deflect angst and anger into beating up another straw man, and one who absorbs any attacks with stonyhearted indifference at that, being shielded from such attacks by the very nature of their appointment (as unelected, 'for life' officials)?
Generally, when the US Supreme Court issues a ruling against some legislation or other legal construct (Bush v. Gore being a glaring exception, and an egregious error both in judgment and of partisanship), what they are supposed to be stating is that the constructors of that legislation, or those who apply that legislation, have not met the standards set out by the US Constitution. It is then up to LEGISLATORS to go back and actually _do_ the work that the citizenry hires them for, which is to craft whatever legislation is necessary for the good of the people (the definition of "for the good of the people" is a subject for another discussion). If legislators would rather default on their responsibilities, and blame the Supreme Court for the legislatures' incompetence or inactivity, than it is we the people who are the fools for not only believing them, but for not loudly decrying such duplicity. There is nothing the Supreme Court can do which is irrevocable and irremediable, if legislatures and the people who employ them have the will to 'overturn' a Supreme Court decision through the legislative process, up to and including Constitutional Amendment. The US Constitution is an extremely important document, but it is not a religiously sacred one, as has been shown 27 times to date, with even further Amendments than that having been proposed.
There is nothing mystical about either the Supreme Court or its constituent members, who show themselves to be subject to human flaws like vanity, hubris, and selfishness _at least_ as often as the rest of us. And shame on legislators who blame the Supreme Court for their own unwillingness to take action to help create a constitutionally more perfect union.