I don't know about you about I get real nervous when I hear people hint at courts making laws. To me it is absolutely repulsive that most Americans have not read the Constitution for themselves. President Obama in all his wisdom picked a women who by some of the things she said is a Activist of the worse kind.
  I want to start by asking a simple question how is it that a country who was found by men who despised tranny of any form, now finds it's self  under the tranny of the federal bench.
In the Constitution the founders of this Country laid out in a very precise way the roles of each branch of Government. As the History of this country moves forward we have lost the line that give us separation of powers. How dose a country that has a clear delineation of each of the branches of the Government come to allowing one branch of the Government( ie.. the courts) to influence every aspect of American lives.The Answer has become a dirty word for most conservatives, especially when it comes to those of us who are originalists. The nasty phrase is called Judicial Review (JR), what this means is that the federal courts have gained the power to over turn act of congress or act of the executive branch. One may say “well what is wrong with that?” Well on the surface nothing, but the problem arises when you look at the reality that has to manifest its self for JR to work. That reality is an objective look at what the constitution says, and what actually qualifies as a constitutional violation. As will be shown in the following articles Objectivity when it comes to the courts is hard to come by.

The best place to look when considering issues like this is History. Winston Churchill once stated that “the only thing we learn form history is that we don’t learn form history.” This is obviously the case when it comes to JR.As far as the court system goes the founders based it on British common law. The Job of the courts in the eyes of the founders were to rule on criminal law, matters of equity, and other legal issues. As a matter of fact rulings were to be viewed on the basis of the state and not the federal courts. The reason for this was to maintain a representative government. In the Articles of Confederation there was no reliance on federal courts, the Articles of confederation made it clear that the state should handle its own disputes. In the outline of the Constitution which was called the Virginia plan, the founders made it very clear as to the jurisdiction of the courts. They stated “All Piracies and felonies on the high seas, capture ofthe enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizen of other statesapplying to such jurisdictions may be interested; or which respect the collection of the national revenue; Impeachment of any national officer, and questions which may involve national peace and harmony.” ( Articles of Confederation) During the Constitutional Convention the idea of the courts legislating form the bench was highly contested. John Dickinson of Delaware argued that Judges should not be empowered to overturn acts of the national legislature. Roger Sherman of Connecticut disapproved to Judges “meddling in politics and parties.”

It was in the rejection of judicial review that the founders came up with the presidential veto.In conclusion, history has shown that the current arrangement of our courts was not intended by the founding fathers, and most importantly it is not supported by the constitution these judges have sworn to protect. The reason I have written on this topic is because it is the foundation of all the problems that we are currently facing.