(First a note: "what new law is the judiciary supposed to pass" was meant to be "what new law is the legislature...".) I'm not sure we disagree. You seem to be

(First a note: "what new law is the judiciary supposed to pass" was meant to be "what new law is the legislature...".) I'm not sure we disagree. You seem to be arguing that no one branch is the final arbiter of what is constitutional; that each is allowed its independent opinion. I agree with that. What I was arguing against in this thread is the proposition that the judiciary alone gets to decide what is constitutional and that it gets to do so regardless of what the constitution actually says. You ended with "This is all by design. This is how it's meant to work," which is a claim that only makes sense if we have a system where the constitution actually means something and its meaning is binding. If the judiciary is free to redefine the constitution however they want, then we are not living under a government that has a design or a correct way to work.