Whether to a sufficient degree or not, SCOTUS agrees with you on this point and exercises a strong reluctance to second-guess past generations of itself, especi

Whether to a sufficient degree or not, SCOTUS agrees with you on this point and exercises a strong reluctance to second-guess past generations of itself, especially on statutory (as opposed to constitutional) matters, since it is theoretically easy for Congress to amend its own statutes if ever Congress should disagree with how the Court has interpreted them. Indeed, just today, SCOTUS also released a unanimous opinion protecting a person's religious rights against his employer [1]. Sotomayor and Jackson left an addendum pointing out that this man had asked them to overrule a 50-year precedent in interpreting a law, and they explicitly chose not to do so (though they ruled in his favor in a different, narrower way) precisely for the reason I mentioned about Congress having the opportunity to correct the matter if they so choose. The "liberal" justices usually get the most flack for "legislating from the bench" (although arguments can be made that the "conservative" ones do it too). But here we have the most liberal justice on the Court saying "The Court's respect for Congress's decision not to intervene promotes the separation of powers by requiring interested parties to resort to the legislative rather than the judicial process to achieve their policy goals." If I could air a very broad-brush opinion, complaints people have about SCOTUS being a partisan institution these days are best levied against Congress (and litigants) for how they treat the Court, not against the Court for its own behavior. When people express low confidence in the Court, I'm always eager to see them aim their low confidence at Congress instead of (not in addition to) the Court. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf