Unfortunately, that is far from the case, due to the dominance of the judicial branch over the executive and legislative branches of government. The judiciary has abrogated unto itself the power to overrule acts of the legislatures and Congress. Judicial review has gutted the U.S. Constitution, ignoring those amendments that do not suit their political philosophy, such as the Second and Tenth Amendments and inventing out of the "penumbras and emanations" they sense in the document. As a result, the Federal government is involved in numerous areas, such as conservation, housing, worker safety, etc., that the Founders never dreamed of and there exist new "rights" (abortion, sodomy) that are unprecedented in the history of what was once called Christendom.
The fact is that the dominant judicial philosophy in this country, including six of the nine current Supreme Court justices, is based on legal positivism. This philosophy stands apart from the natural law theory underlying the U.S. Constitution, and the Biblical concepts from which Anglo-American common law is derived. Under legal positivism, there is no fixed moral compass on which the laws should be based. Therefore, the judge is free to interpret the letter of the law to fit his particular view of social justice or the needs of society. One liberal Supreme Court justice was supposed to have said, "The Constitution is what I say it is." Under legal positivism, his statement would be accurate.
What the pro-lifers wanted was for the executive and legislative branches of government to intervene in this matter. Both branches blinked when faced with the intransigence of the judiciary. Yet this particular case should have called for investigation due to the issues raised in the conservative media (Hannity, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Savage, etc., talk shows and the Internet sites). As a conservative, I find their information to more likely be true than that of the liberal, pro-death MSM, whom you evidently believe.
The governor and legislature of Florida should have challenged the judiciary, even with the risk that the judges might have ordered their arrest, and that the judges may have found LEOs willing to enforce the warrants. They did not, to their dishonor.
The judiciary must be restrained. The power of judicial review of legislation must be subject to override by a majority vote of the legislature and/or a majority vote of the public through referendum. There should be term limits for judges and none should sit in any court for more than six years. There should be a minimum six year gap between a person re-entering the judiciary at any level after his term is over. No sitting governor or president should be subject to criminal proceedings except by the legislature or Congress. The Constitution should be amended to declare that if a Federal justice issues a ruling contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, as defined in The Federalist Papers and other founding era documents, such a ruling is defined as an impeachable offense. The Constitution should also be amended to require election of Federal judges. A "truth in campaigning" requirement should be imposed on judicial candidates, requiring them to state the basis of their judicial philosophy, their opinion of past court decisions of significance, and their opinion about the death penalty, among other matters.
The tyranny of the black robes must end, or we might as well stop calling ourselves a representative republic under a constitution.
To the point and right on target. Thank you.