http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509674/posts?page=43#43
JUDICIAL USURPATION AND LEGISLATIVE ABDICATION [Ramesh Ponnuru]Rich: I think you're giving Miers too much credit here, and the Post too little. There are a lot of ways to connect the themes of judicial usurpation and legislative abdication. You could adopt the argument that legislatures are to blame for not reining in the courts (an argument which I think is generally sound). You could go on to note that legislatures have not sought to reclaim their powers because they are perfectly happy to see the courts get the blame for tough decisions.
That's not the argument Miers makes. The argument she makes is that the courts can't be blamed when they are forced to step in to resolve problems that elected officials have failed to resolve (e.g., the problems of school funding and low-income housing siting). That is a very standard argument, usually associated with liberals. Eliot Spitzer, for example, often argues that it is necessary to pursue anti-gun policies through the courts because legislatures have failed to act. But it's hard to see how the courts are to distinguish between a) a legislative "failure to act," b) a legislative decision that there is no problem demanding solution, or c) a legislative decision that solving any problem would create new and greater problems. Any act of judicial usurpation can be described as a reluctant response to the legislature's failure to enact what the judges wanted them to enact
Here is were we may have a disagreement .. I absolutely believe the legislators are spineless about stepping up to the plate with the hard problems that we know some liberal court has overstepped their authority..I cannot understand how we Republicans with the majority behind us, can allow a lone judge make laws that should be overturned by an elected officials.. The education, housing, and the prison systems come to mind..