3 ms·

The “should we use the judicial branch to legislate” ship sailed a long time ago, and it’s not coming back to the harbor. For better or worse, the judiciary as

• crazygringo 7y ago
  As someone who majored in political science including constitutional law... it's not that simple. The courts have the ability to "legislate" via precedent when choosing between different conflicting laws or conflicting rights, and have an extra-wide scope when it comes to interpreting the constitution, because it is so short and intentionally broad/vague. But when it comes to non-constitutional issues (e.g. antitrust), and a situation is clearly covered by existing law (not at the "boundary" of a law or between conflicting laws), the judicial branch can't do anything. I mean, that's just not how courts work. And if a court did, it would be overturned in appeal. So, no -- I absolutely would never acknowledge the judiciary as legislators now. That would be a complete constitutional and democratic breakdown, so thank goodness that's not the case. Don't confuse gridlock (slow lawmaking) with an unconstitutional usurpment of power.