The Supreme court.

The Supreme Court does not make any laws. Lawmaking is reserved for Congress, the legislative branch.

The three branches:
Legislative (congress): makes the laws
Executive (President, cabinet): carries out the laws
Judicial (Supreme & lower courts): interprets the laws

The Supreme Court INTERPRETS the law when there is a dispute. The SC's decision is final.

The US CONSTITUTION is the US' highest law, and on occasion the Supreme Court has struck down other laws that, in their opinion, conflict with the Constitution.

Equus
Yes. That Is my understanding of what should happen. However, does it follow that it always does. Many issues that they rule on are not covered by or in the constitution. When that happens as so often they do, rulings are made based upon many factors, including politics, religion and I guess their personal opinion. And in effect make the law. Were that no so would the president be looking to appoint conservative judges and the democrats fighting so hard to keep them off the bench?

The third article of the constitution, which describes the judiciary and its powers and jurisdictions, reads, in part:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The section which is in bold-face was amended by the eleventh amendment, ratified February, 1795, which reads, in full:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The authority to determine that statutes or portions of statutes do or do not violate the provisions of the constitution arises from the opinion written in 1803 by Mr. Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The Federalists lost to the Republicans (different Republican Party) in 1800, but Adams rushed to fill judicial vacancies which were created by the Judiciary Act of 1800. Jefferson's administration therefore controlled the Congress and the Executive, but not the Judicial branch. So the Judiciary Act of 1800 was repealed, and Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, simply refused to deliver the judicial commissions to those appointed by Adams. One of those so appointed, Mr. Marbury, therefore sued Madison.

Simply stated, Marshall held that a people would not write a constitution if they had not intended it to be the supreme law of the land. Therefore, insofar as any legislation was contradicted by the constitution, it was null and void. The principle is simple, but not the judicial proceeding and the opinion rendered by Marshall. As good a description of the controversy as i've read can be found here.

I suggest to you AU, that contending that this in effect means that the Supremes legislate from the bench is often a matter of whose ox was gored.

Setanta wrote

Yes, however the question is, should the supremes or the congress be the ones doing the goring?