Court Opinion

ID: 9680693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:36:45.232037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:30.000337
License: Public Domain

GRAY, Justice,
concurring.
The judgment of the Court is correct, results from the proper analysis of the statute and I concur in it. The purpose of this concurring opinion is to express my concerns about comments made in addition to the legal analysis and judgment.
The proper role of the judiciary does not include becoming an advocate to urge the legislature to make changes in the laws of *290this state. Support of specific legislation is a right to be exercised by the parties and other members of our society. Though we may ask the high court in our branch of government to clarify an issue resulting from confusion in prior precedent, we should not inject this forum into the legislative process. The judiciary is not established, staffed, or organized in a manner conducive to discussing the issues and the analysis necessary for effective legislative debate. It is our province to interpret, rather than write, the law.
This case presents a good example. This is an original proceeding. There are still many issues that have not been determined by the trial court. We have no authority to find facts. We should not comment on the events which have not been determined by a fact finder vested with the authority to determine such facts, especially when those comments may impact the trial court’s determination of pending matters. Such judicial restraint is important, because, from my examination of the record in this case, I do not find that it supports the facts or abuse of the system suggested by the majority. Any discussion or analysis other than determining the proper application of the statute to the record before us should be left to the legislature.