It s also unrealistic to expect nine learned judges to agree on everything. Excessive dissents and concurrences, however, unarguably muddy the water for lower-court judges, parties and attorneys who have to interpret and apply the law. Let s begin by reminding ourselves of the structure and purpose of our system of checks and balances. The judicial branch does not exist to reflect the short-term opinions and momentary wishes of the citizens, and isn t suited to that role. For that, we have the legislative and executive branches, whose proactive authority places them closer to the popular will of the people.
Courts are passive and reactive.
They can t reach out and grab cases that seem interesting. They must wait for aggrieved parties to voluntarily file an actual case or controversy and ask the Court to help resolve a problem the parties, presumably, could not resolve themselves. Once the people s momentary desires are expressed through legislation, the legislature passes the law and the governor signs it, it s up to the Court to deliberately and thoughtfully examine the law to see if it agrees with the broad principles of our state and federal Constitutions and the values on which our society is based. This deliberative process does not benefit from exposure to short-term political pressures. And practicing before the appellate courts of our state, one sometimes gets the feeling that the honorable and diligent judges of those courts are constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering and worrying about the political pressures that will be brought to bear in the next election.