The Supreme Court of the United States has almost absolute authority to choose what lower court cases it will agree to hear on appeal. This high level of discretion has been labeled as legislation without representation in that it enables the Court to review matters of great conflict between the states which allowing other controversial rulings to stand until there is a sufficiently broad division or sufficient public support for a particular case.
In your initial discussion:
In your opinion, should the Supreme Court have that level of discretion?
Does that discretion give the Court the ability to engage in broader constitutional interpretation than was envisioned by our founding fathers?