[HitmanLV]

I'm probably wrong, but I though judges tried cases, not intepreted the law. (A fine point, but important.)

He is referring to appellate judges here, who don't do trials, but rather decide matters of law. Towards that end, they decide what the law says. So yes, judges interpret what the law means.

Judges also make law, which is what hundreds of years of common law is largely about.

[jwalsh07]

Judges also make law, which is what hundreds of years of common law is largely about.

Wow, who knew? Is there any limit to the powers of the judiciary in America?

[rbookward]

He is referring to appellate judges here, who don't do trials, but rather decide matters of law. Towards that end, they decide what the law says. So yes, judges interpret what the law means.

Judges also make law, which is what hundreds of years of common law is largely about.

Got it. Thanks!

Am I right in assuming that even appellate judges can only interpret laws applicable to the cases brought before them? For example, SCOTUS can't just overrule Rove v. Wade, they have to wait until an appropriate case comes in.

On second thought, I don't want to highjack the thread. I'll just use these Internet tube-thingies to look at WikiPedia and see what I can find. Thanks again.