> Also, as a non-american I find it absolutely absurd that for a lot of people there is this fascination with "the constitution" as being this all-powerful scripture and that's what the supreme court is supposed to defend, not the more abstract aspects of morality.
People have very large disagreements over what is morally right.
In the American system of government, it's the role of the legislature to ensure that the laws represent some consensus of justice and morality. It's the role of the judiciary to resolve ambiguity and contradiction in those laws. If the judiciary were to rule based on their subjective views of morality, it would subvert the will of the people, as expressed in laws and constitutional amendments passed by the legislature (and legislatures of the states).
The courts are courts of law instead of courts of morality or justice, largely due to interpretation of morality and justice being much more problematic and arbitrary than interpretation of laws. It's the role of the legislature, not the judiciary, to determine consensus views of justice and morality.
People have very large disagreements over what is morally right.
In the American system of government, it's the role of the legislature to ensure that the laws represent some consensus of justice and morality. It's the role of the judiciary to resolve ambiguity and contradiction in those laws. If the judiciary were to rule based on their subjective views of morality, it would subvert the will of the people, as expressed in laws and constitutional amendments passed by the legislature (and legislatures of the states).
The courts are courts of law instead of courts of morality or justice, largely due to interpretation of morality and justice being much more problematic and arbitrary than interpretation of laws. It's the role of the legislature, not the judiciary, to determine consensus views of justice and morality.