SCOTUS Risks Making Itself Irrelevant

The recent SCOTUS case arising out of the news Texas law is broader than the narrow if dreadfully important prohibition imposed by that law.

Roberts alludes to the central problem: The US Supreme Court (and its subordinate Federal courts) is nowhere explicitly authorized or directed to perform judicial review, and no US court is explicitly tasked with protecting the human rights of an individual. Judicial review, a court reviewing a law to see that it does not contravene the US Constitution, was assumed by SCOTUS in the case of Marbury v Madison (1803), on the basis of a fairly weak foundation. The 14th Amendment, the basis of so many rights advanced by SCOTUS starting in the 1950s, does not assign enforcement of its terms to any body whatsoever.

Consequently, SCOTUS has literally been all over the map on enforcement of the 14th Amendment, and the constitutional vagueness on the protection of human rights allowed the creation of "Originalism" in the 1980s to undermine those rights. There was a reason Bork was "Borked" and kept off the highest bench. But in the intervening 35 years, the defenders of human rights in this country did little to nothing to close that wide open gate, eroding Federal judicial review and allowing the return to these disUnited States where your rights depend on where you live.

Note: Judicial review and the duty of courts to protect human rights ARE explicitly enshrined in newer constitutions, such as that of Montenegro (2007, see Article 149), and the relevant treaties of the European Union .