Their reading (interpretation, not enacting) of the Constitution is what is often called by defenders and accusers, liberal or conservatives as either from a 'strict constructionist'] or 'activist'view of the US Constitution as ratified originally.
What most of us, myself included, find offensive is when we see a spirit of equality and respect for individual rights demanded by the Constitution between all parties, denied in these rulings. The Founding Fathers and President Lincoln spoke of 'a more perfect union' which liberals feel means improvement above the original circumstances under which the Constitution was ratified, such as the 3/5ths clause which was included in order to get the southern states to sign on it. The 14th addressed this offense to human dignity here:
It counts all residents for apportionment, overriding Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which counted only three-fifths of each state's slave population.
There is a lot of history in this amendment in the Wikipedia that is deeply disturbing to the modern mind and heart. The 14th and other amendments are part of the process of making it 'more perfect,' as the cases you can see below decided under the 14th are deeply offensive to the human spirit and national unity. When we had a preonderance of 'liberal' justices, the US Constitution seemed to have gone more in our direction, such as Roe v. Wade and the Miranda ruling.
Enacting laws is not possible by the USSC under the three branches of government, AFAIK. Rather, they can declare a law not be enforced, not enact a law to be enforced, except when they deny to hear a case, such as a death penalty case or a lawsuit. I am perhaps more narrow in my view of the word 'enact' than you are being using it here. In my recollection, the word enact regarding courts has been used to slam liberals, like the term 'activist' judges to smear Roe v. Wade, in which the USSC ruled that the:
Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_wade
In another case of a man who was eventually convicted, but was the end of the endless and torturous interrogations by law to break down suspects (the way they do in movies, so many people think that is legal, and others think that bleeding heart liberal judges are letting criminals go free when this procedure isn't followed), in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the USSC ruled:
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Now to the Citizens United case and the USSC ruled that the Federal Election Board rules were unconstitutional. This is a sorry ruling, almost as bad in the long term and short term as the hideous Dred Scott ruling, which is part of the reason the 14th had to be added to the Constitution to get away from it.
States citizens, congressmen and senators are trying to get an amendment to overturn it, but the chances of that happening are very, very low, unless public opinion changes. While many of us hate Citizens United, too many believe it is the definition of free speech. The Koch brothers are long-term actors, are working to disassemble the government of the United States from the office of dog catcher up the USSC. Getting around them will require grassroots effort, not just a ruling, as the placement of these conservatives on the court came through the election of Republicans.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that had held that black people could not be citizens of the United States.[1]
Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.
Text
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
From the above, the USSC interpreted the text above to rule in the cases below that answer your question of enacting laws. They did not enact laws, only the executive branch of the federal or states can do so. I'm sure you're thinking of at least one of these lawsuits the USSC overturned:
Corporate personhood
* 1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
* 2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
I don't know if that answered you, but I feel that I have done my best and it's still up to us.
= new reply since forum marked as read
