>>Well I'd be silly to disagree with several doctors who gave me the same diagnosis after running a myriad of tests.
>>Same goes for Justices on the Supreme Court.
>>Not so for my Prime Ministers or members of parliament or mayors or cops or...
>>
>>Somewhere along the line you've gotta accept that there are experts who know better than you do.
>
>
>So you consider your justices "experts" in every field they adjudicate? Our Supremes upheld slavery and murdering unborn babies. I think they were and are wrong. They are also not experts, they are supposed to rule on the law and how it squares with our constitution, not create new law.

No, I consider them experts at law, and particularly the Constitution. And there are no "experts" on many of the issues they consider. There can be no expert on what "privacy" means that is any better than the justices. There can be no expert on when "life begins". And, at least in the U.S., the implied costs of a ruling are not a factor in determining the law on a subject.

Where have they created "new law"? Striking down a law on Constitutional grounds is not "making new law", it's correcting bad law.

As I said, the Justices (here, in Canada, and also in the U.S. but I'm unaffected by them) have made a few decisions which I question, and even disagree with, but they do know the law and Constitution far better than I ever will. Just as one cannot "a la carte" the bible, one can't the Constitution either.

FYI, we got our Constitution only in 1982. Prior to that judges, including the Supreme Court justices, could consider the specific situation surrounding a case and 'tailor' the verdict for a better "fit". That all went away with the adoption of the Constitution and now it is basically only the letter of the law that is applied. They do get to consider "the greater good to society" and have in instances declared a law unconstitutional but still valid considering that factor.