Final answer:
The Supreme Court exercises restraint in invalidating laws to maintain governmental balance, respect the clear provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and avoid unnecessary conflicts with other governmental branches. Personal policy preferences of the justices do not outweigh the need to uphold the law, showcasing the Court's commitment to its role as an arbiter of constitutional interpretation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court does not frequently invalidate laws because it seeks to maintain balance and respect within the structure of the U.S. government. Judicial review plays a critical role in upholding the Constitution; however, the process not only involves interpreting the Constitution, which is often clear in its provisions, but also considering the broader implications of overturning laws, including the impact on society and the potential for conflict with the legislative and executive branches. The Court acts with caution and deliberation, often upholding federal statutes if they do not clearly violate constitutional principles and may choose to alter them incrementally over time to avoid confrontations with elected bodies.
Moreover, judges are expected to put aside personal policy preferences to follow the law and the Constitution. Even when personal opinions may differ, as highlighted by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his speech, adherence to laws is paramount unless there is a clear constitutional conflict. The Court's rarity in striking down laws reflects this commitment to judicial restraint and the weighty responsibility that comes with judicial review.