<snip>

>But again, his is a minority opinion. The majority opinion feels otherwise. If you feel credence should be given to a majority vote by the populace, why would you feel that only the minority vote is valid in the supreme court.

I am citing the minority opinion because that's the opinion that concerns the constitutional role of the judiciary. These are two different types of votes/opinions. The vote on Prop 22 is a democratic vote by the populace. The "vote" of a supreme court member is legal opinion. Equating a losing vote in an election to a legal opinion of a supreme court justice is not a valid comparison.

In this case new law has been created where previously it did not exist. If the opinion simply overturned Prop 22 as unconstitutional, then I could accept that the judiciary did their duty and interpreted the new law. There would still be the issue of overturning the vote of the people, however, the people are not allowed to trample on existing constitutional rights. However, in this case, they went further, and created new law. That is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary and therein lies my concern.

I understand that throughout our history we've had several cases where the judiciary has acted in this manner. Some most agree are good, ie Brown vs. Board of Education, some most agree are bad, ie Kelo v. New London, but the issue for me is the role of the court. This is not their constitutionally defined role.

In addition, by ruling this way, they have kept the fight alive. In my opinion Prop 22 could've been overturned as unconstitutional and then the legislature could've taken up the law again and gone through the process. Instead the California Supreme Court has now thrown the issue back in the faces of those who take it WAY too seriously on the right. This November there will now be a State Constitutional Amendment on the ballot, which very well could pass, and if so the state supreme court will have an enormously more difficult task overturning.