Mark Steyn was filling in for Rush Limbaugh today and he got a very interesting question from a caller, who wondered why the Supreme Court seems to have no trouble legislating law that completely upends thousands of years of cultural norms and flouts the wishes of the people (gay marriage, for example), but freezes up when it is faced with evidentiary situations that may well represent actual crimes under existing law (stealing the presidential election). A fascinating discussion ensued, and if you can catch a recording of the show (this conversation occurred in the first hour) it's well worth listening to.
In a nutshell, and mincing no words, Steyn boiled his conclusions down to (roughly) the following handful:
1) Mass opinions require a mass movement;
2) Judges - even the highest in the land - are as susceptible to threats and intimidation as anyone, and the SCOTUS justices have calculated that there is more to fear from the Left than from the Right (see #1);
3) Judges refusing to do their job, for any reason, are demonstrating cowardice;
4) Any state (which I took to mean not only political sub-units of the U.S., such as Michigan or Pennsylvania, but the nation-state, as well) that cannot ensure a fair election deserves no respect whatsoever.