re: #507 jcm

I want just a couple of things. Return to shared powers, and the courts to quit writing legislation. When something is found unconstitutional they find just that, not rewrite the law in their image, just kick it back to the other branches to sort it out.

Sadly my friend those days - if they ever really existed - are gone forever.
Judges - even and perhaps especially Justices of the SCOTUS are only supposed to interpret language (in the case of SCOTUS with the language contained in the Constitution as amended) when there is some ambiguity in said language. That went out the window I don’t know how many years ago.
For example, The Warren Court rendered several opinions on the First Amendment’s guarantee of Freedom of Speech. Mr. Justice Hugo Black said words to the effect “I dissent from the majority’s opinion in this matter. The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law abridging…..freedom of speech” and I don’t see any ambiguity in the “No Law” part of that Amendment and we ought not to have ever taken this case.”
In subsequent cases dealing with Freedom of Speech, Justice Black would dissent saying “see my dissent in such and such case. There is NO AMBIGUITY in the constitution’s written language that Congress shall make NO law……..”
And judges of all levels, federal, state and municipal when faced with a case where the application of the law would result in what the judge him or her self would find abhorrent or even unpleasant, would find some ambiguity to reach a different outcome than the law clearly required.