Posted On: October 19, 2005, 7:40 am CDT

Posted By: Chris

Y'all (I'm from Texas) are still missing the point.

Someone challenged the law on constitutional grounds: presumption of guilt, limited ability to cross examine one's accuser, the government not having to prove all of the elements of the crime. I'm sure that no one at the County Prosecutors office took the challenge seriously, or assigned a top level constitutional lawyer to argue the case. Besides, a similar law has been upheld in other jurisdictions, right?

But then, a U.S. Supreme Court case was cited as support. The judge ruled that the case cited was on point and was applicable precedent, and thus found the statute unconstitutional. The judge then gave all parties a period of time to bring the matter to a forum that allowed judicial review.

No one did. So, the judge's ruling is now precedent, but in his court only. The judge is now dismissing the cases that come before him, as a message to the prosecutors to get the cases filed where the issue can be reviewed by the appellate courts.

Obviously, he is also challenging the legislature to review the matter, and come up with something that will pass constitutional muster if the law is reviewed, and found lacking.

What's the knee-jerk response? Impeach/vote out/hang the judge! It's a liberal conspiracy! The judge is legislating from the bench! Corruption is involved! The judicial system needs to be replaced! The judge is substituting his morals for the will of the legislature!

Sorry guys, but the rights of the people, as enumerated in the Constitution, trump the will of the legislature, even if the intent is noble. Our freedom depends on judges to look a law square in the eye, and if it is unconstitutional, or appears to be unconstitutional, rule that way.