O.K. I'm listening. I really believe America is on the verge of seriously considering a third party.

The problem is that it isn't how it worked. How it worked was the court overthrew the law and established a new law out of thin air. They established a new right which they said was in the state's constitution. And if that is an example of how things are supposed to work, it could work that way just as easily on a federal level with a judge deciding that the Defense of Marriage act is unconstitutional and declaring homosexual marriage a right under the US constitution.

I'm not saying I disagree with his assessment that each state should be able to determine it's own laws, but I am not so sure you don't need an amendment in order to make the laws untouchable by activist judges. Anymore it isn't legislatures that make the laws, it is judges.

I agree with you on the responsibility of judges and their appropriate duty. However, the circumstances in California are closer to the people, as they always are when issues are addressed at the state level. If there is some judicial malfeasance to be addressed, then it is the voters and legislators of California that need to work it out. The issue as I see it is not whether I agree with the particular court regarding a decision or blatant activism, be it federal or state, rather the issue is jurisdiction.