> No, it absolutely does not. Can you explain what the law on the books currently is, and how the majority opinion "absolutely does not" respect it? > It comp

> No, it absolutely does not. Can you explain what the law on the books currently is, and how the majority opinion "absolutely does not" respect it? > It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted. Things have changed since a law was enacted by legislative fiat. The thesis behind those arguing the intended function of the judiciary is that any instance in the past where the judiciary has actually changed a law since it was enacted is considered abuse and not to be repeated.