Well... sort of. But take, for example, Kelo - the Court itself noted that legislatures across the country could change things, and in fact begged them to do so. Final? Nope.

And the court didn't "get 40+million babies murdered," they merely allowed private individual citizens the right to do it.

The court made the wishes of the few seem acceptable against the will of the majority, witch was made to seem like it never existed or mattered, so I'll blame court as the branch most dangerous to a citizen getting a chance at a first breath let alone a vote. Now you can argue that what 40+ million vote them selves into as being more dangerous but can't you see what 40+ million put to death without a chance and the fact that half this country now thinks it's no big deal because of it to be a realists summation of cause and effect of the most harmful?

It's not nonsense; it's just improperly focused. The SupCt doesn't set policy but it does lay a good portion of the foundation upon which policy is made. Policy advances that were decades in the making can be undone in a very short time, altering the superstructure around which the next series of policy developments are developed.

The pro-lifers showed they'd finally learned this when they stopped trying the get Roe v. Wade overturned wholesale and started working on chipping away at abortion and building a body of helpful caselaw.

Another example is the rebirth of federalist limitations on federal power that began under Rhenquist. That could, if properly nurtured, form the basis of a generation-long paring back of extra-constitutional federal power. But my chief worry about this year's Presidential race is that a couple/three more activist liberals in the mold of Ginsburg could undo it in half the time it took to set it in motion.

But they sure can get 40+million babies murderd ruling in the favor of a few idiot liberals against the will of the people.

While I disagree with the ruling both as a matter of public policy and constitutional interpretation, it's still merely the overturning of law. Abortion was legal until it was outlawed. And the court didn't "get 40+million babies murderd," they merely allowed private individual citizens the right to do it.

Still, the Supreme Court can’t send our troops off to war. They can’t raise your taxes. They can’t even pass laws.

But they sure can get 40+million babies murderd ruling in the favor of a few idiot liberals against the will of the people.

As the final arbiters of "what is right", SCOTUS is the most powerful body.

Ah. But they're only the final arbiters because the Congress allows them to be. Act of Congress could eliminate the Court's appellate jurisdiction, a significant part of its power. That the Congress elects not to exercise its power is a matter of practice, not of principle.

Now I'm not saying they are the most powerful branch of government but they influence policy in ways the others cannot. Both the executive and legislative are not nearly as bound by previous decisions. There is no 'stare decisis' for them.

The President's choices for the court may not be the most important decisions made but they are very near the top.

They can’t raise your taxes.

Actually, they can under their equity powers or, more accurately, they can order the Congress to raise your taxes.

There's another power that makes Congress supreme: the power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court has primary jurisdiction over federal law, treaties, cases involving ambassadors, maritime, cases between states and between citizens of states other than their home states and between citizens of different states. What proportion of the total cases it hears does that constitute these days? Half? Ten percent?