In SCOTUS's decision yesterday to invalidate juvenile death penalities, Justice Scalia basically
argues, not against the decision, but against the court ever doing anything that doesn't have 90% or so approval of state legislatures.
Then why is the court there? In all my legal history and american history, it was pretty stressed that their main roll is to insure that laws meet the requirements of the constitution, not that they do a poll to see if a majority of the country agrees with the law.
It's actually rather embarassing. As much as I disagree with his opinions, I've generally respected his legal mind. In his opinion, there is a distinct lack of legal argument; rather, it seems he's borrowed Bush's talking points that the court shouldn't go against the public's morality.