I believe that Justice Talmadge properly suggests that the bounds of the constitution need not be stretched to meet a perceived need brought by the plaintiffs therein. Name one where you would have dissented and explain why. State v. Chapman. I would dissent saying that our state Supreme Court has assumed the position of the Legislature by seizing its power to determine what acts constitute a crime and has done so without giving any guidelines or standard as to how that new criminal-law power is to be enforced. This includes the potential of being charged with a felony for not paying the other side's attorney.
Controversies are the judiciary's arena.
Much like a football game, we don't care who the referees are as long as they seem fair. We would like them to be favorable to our favorite team, but we hate it even more when they make bad calls in favor of our opponents. Our courts need judges who not only ARE fair, but also present the appearance of fairness. Taking sides before the issue comes does the same thing. In most places, congestion denies people timely adjudication of their controversies.