However, what has cause most problems is now activist courts that try to legislate from the bench instead of interpreting law they make law which lets legislatures off the hook of coming together
The progressive left has been extremely successful in advancing judicial activism. Though I am not a lawyer, it appears that the progressive left has established a new legal concept, that of "
disparate impact". Essentially it holds that if a case can be made that a certain group of people will somehow "
suffer" that the court can invalidate a law.
As one thematic example, the progressive left insists that every vote be counted, an admirable goal. However, when laws are implemented to clean-up the voter roles and/or require voter identification these laws are immediately challenged in court as having a "
disparate impact" and in many cases the laws have been invalidated (overturned). The Washington Times reported: "
Fla. Dems sue to extend voter registration period as hurricane approaches". Sounds reasonable at first blush, after all hurricanes are very disruptive. However, it is not within the purview of the court system to "
modify" a law simply based on potential hurricane impacts. The appropriate solution would have been for the legislature to convene an emergency session. Extending the voter registration period is only within the purview of the legislature. Fortunately, this lawsuit was tossed out.
The progressive left is also demanding through the court system that a citizenship question be deleted from the US Census despite the fact that this question has been historically on the Census. In this case, the progressive left is demanding that the court system interfere with a decision of the Executive Branch of government. CNN reported:
Supreme Court to hear case related to census citizenship question . Again this is an inappropriate use of the judicial system to interfere with operation of the Executive Branch.
In conclusion, both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branches are having some of their decisions interfered with through (inappropriate) judicial activism. Of course, I need to end by acknowledging that we do need to have a judicial system that uphold the rule-of-law for this country.