Gunny
Gold Member
I went back a few, but came across my own, asking, "Brown was brought to the courts to challenge the seperate but equal rulings. They won, as they should. I fail to see the analogy. How did the court end up with this? From everything I've seen, seems the court is ordering the legislature to enact law. That's very different than interpreting law?"
Maybe I'm missing something?
You are arguing with someone who obviously does not believe in the division of powers as they are spelled out. Leftist judicial activism is almost sport nowadays in this country. completely ignoring the fact that the court does not posess the power to legislate, nor to order the legislature to legislate. The power is assumed by the judiciary, and all too often left unchallenged by the legislature.
The court can declare law invalid, unconstitutional or whatever, but it has no jurisdiction in dictating how it should be fixed. The court can offer suggestions in its findings, nothing more. All the legislature has to do is let a ruling stand, and that in fact becomes law.
In this case, the court is CLEARLY out of bounds ordering he legislature to create law based on judicial whim.