The Anglo-American legal tradition has a long-standing custom of judges reinterpreting law, through overturning or modifying previous decisions, as the broader society they serve changes.
I don't believe that people really want the alternative, where the government hands out new laws and punishments and sitting judges have no room to interpret or apply them to specific, unforeseen circumstances.
That's how things are done in France, where the judge isn't a sort of referee as in our adversarial system, but an agent of the state; ie, on the same side as the prosecution.
Heavens, Gefreiter! Are you daring to suggest that we live in a republic, not a mob-rule democracy that stands above the rule of law? ;-)
Your point is right on the money.
The uncomfortable fact is that these "Propositions" are hard to defend as not just another slippery slope to mobocracy. The reason for having a republican democracy is that a straight demoncracy doesn't protect the rights of the minority position. 60% might have supported this proposition, but that doesn't mean we should let the legislators and executives off the hook. If they are violating constitutionality, then it *is* the judiciary role to protect that minority.
And if the judiciary oversteps its bounds, pretending something is unconstitutional when it's not, that's where it's our responsibility to work through our legislative and executive branches to knock it back into line. Personally, I think the Feds overstep their bounds too much, and this might be a case of the judge supporting that, but the answer isn't to throw our system to the wolves.
I agree with those who want to force this issue with the Governor--and legislature--involved.