Liberals think democracy has a reset button - (liberal judges reverse voters' preferences!)

They can't 'throw it out'.

At least not legally.

Under the Constitution, judges do not have the power to 'negate' any law legally adopted by the government (state or federal).

They can only render an 'opinion' on it's constitutionality and 'recommend' to the government that it be rewritten or abandoned.

Even the mere pronouncement of being 'unconstitutional' does not negate the law as written.

The law would still stand until the government readdresses it.

The Judge has no enforcement power if the government decides to ignore it's conclusion.

It is not like they keep score or anything, so who cares?

We went to see a neighbor kid playing hockey, and, since we arrived with the game in progress, we asked his dad which team was winning. I couldn't believe the answer: "They don't keep score." The parents spend gazillions on skates and uniforms, the city spends even more on the fanciest of courts, the kids practice and practice, and then, . . . they don't keep score.

It’s been said here many times by the few lawyers on FR and by others who understand that the hyperbole about judges usurping power is just so much clap-trap. Almost without exception the rants on FR describe not what judges’ responsibilities are or what they do but, rather, that the court being savaged decided a case on the relevant facts before it in juxtaposition to the applicable rule of law in with a ruling that displeases the writer of the post. That recurrent demonstration of a lack of understanding persists despite the clear explanation here often that courts have the duty to define vague terms, interpret ambiguous statutory commands and measure the legislation against constitutional criteria.

For example, the GOP controlled Congress passed and President Bush signed the new bankruptcy law. The value or detriment of that new law to the public and policy aside, that’s for another post, it presents another and excellent example of the obligations imposed on courts as the third co-equal and independent branch of government. Among the many confusing provisions of the bankruptcy law is one that allows a debtor who is “sufficiently” below his state’s median income the unchallengeable right to file the bankruptcy petition.

Like with the judicial determination of what, in other instances, is a “reasonable” search, or what constitutes “due process,” or “just compensation,” it is the courts that are given the obligation to interpret what the term “sufficiently” means in both a universal sense as well in any given case before the court. Thus, much to the chagrin of the too often ignorant radio talking heads and the noisy clamor of the uninformed who think courts merely read statutory words and apply them, it should be clear (although it probably will not be accepted) that when a statutory command requires interpretation or is ambiguous, the only agency of government capable of accomplishing that important task is the judiciary.

Once Congress has passed an Act and the President has signed it into law, as the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) said, it becomes the sole duty of the judicial department to declare what the law is. If the law is clear, unambiguous and not open to interpretation and if it is consistent with constitutional standards, then the courts’ have no role except for application. However, as is virtually always the case, the law or agency regulation is issued containing some provision(s) that is capable of question as to its meaning. Even though there will be those fervently wishing a different outcome, the courts’ intervention is a necessary act consistent with democracy’s demand that law be both known and predictable by those affected by it.

Because a state legislative body - -or, for that matter Congress, passes an Act that becomes law, it is unalterably the exclusive obligation of the courts (and hence judges) to determine whether the law comports with the Constitution. Those who complain about the courts is nothing less than a substitute statement for saying that they disagree with the court. The answer is not to pillory the judges, the answer is to enact legislation that meets constitutional muster.

The last elections. In every state, the percentage who voted against gay marriage was FAR above the percentage who voted for Bush. That means a lot of Kerry voters voted down gay marriage as well. (Not to mention a few - although not very many - Bush voters may have voted in favour of gay marriage, mostly ultra-libertarians)