I understand that the founding fathers intended the Supreme Court to interpret the law - and not make the law. But these same founding fathers expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a pure democracy. This was to protect us against the "tyranny of the majority". I agree with this. So does Ron Paul who said: "Pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty."
In California, a 51% vote of the people is all that is needed to alter the constitution. If this isn't mob rule than I don't know what is.
So given the choice between "legislation from the bench" and "legislation from the mob", I'll take the former.
