Sure they have - those parameters are just not as narrow as legislators want you to believe. Congress and the state legislators have been abdicating their responsibilities to the courts for decades now, and they generally prefer it that way - they take the credit for the things that people like, and they get to blame the courts for whatever goes wrong. It's perfect. Well, perfect for spineless legislators, anyway, which is most of them.
"Sure they have - those parameters are just not as narrow as legislators want you to believe. Congress and the state legislators have been abdicating their responsibilities to the courts for decades now, and they generally prefer it that way - they take the credit for the things that people like, and they get to blame the courts for whatever goes wrong. It's perfect. Well, perfect for spineless legislators, anyway, which is most of them."
Please pay attention to what is going on. Most of the judges will rule that narrow is too narrow and not narrow is not narrow enough depending on what they want. Neither should be the case. All should rule on the laws, not on their agenda, but most rule on their agenda and the laws are pushed aside.
"Sure they have - those parameters are just not as narrow as legislators want you to believe. Congress and the state legislators have been abdicating their responsibilities to the courts for decades now, and they generally prefer it that way - they take the credit for the things that people like, and they get to blame the courts for whatever goes wrong. It's perfect. Well, perfect for spineless legislators, anyway, which is most of them."
Terri's law was too narrow, so it was ruled unconstitutional.
The law that the US legislature passed was not narrow enough so the judges ignored it.
Face the facts, the judges are ruling, not according to the law, but according to what they want.
There are many, many, many more rulings that are the same. When narrow, they are unconstitutional, if they are not narrow, they are ignored by the judiciary.