Court Opinion

ID: 9686317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:41:57.849414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:17.663527
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the result reached by the majority, and with much of its reasoning. However, I cannot join part iv of today’s opinion.
Defendants argue that, if we find that the two-inch rule was not revived by statute, we should revive the two-inch rule ourselves. I agree with the majority’s *592conclusion that we should not revive the two-inch rule at this time. I reach that decision, not because the Court lacks the power to revive the rule, but because defendants have not persuaded us that our decision in Rule was incorrect. Ante at 589-591.
I dissent because the majority, in an alternate position, rejects defendants’ argument that the Court should adopt the two-inch rule because it would be unconstitutional to do so. I agree that, in areas properly within the province of the Legislature, the Court may not formulate its own public policy and, on that basis, change a statute. However, nothing in the opinion convinces me that reviving the two-inch rule would violate that limitation, and therefore, I cannot join the portion of the opinion that implies as much. I hesitate to construe limitations placed on this Court by our constitution where it is not necessary to do so.
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Kelly, J.