Who Makes The Rules?

Ok, I was able to muddle my way through The Diverse Administration Positions On The Profligate Spending Of Human Capital (ie, WMD and the 911 terrorists who used Iraq as their headquarters, both still supported today as reasons to sacrifice American lives to invade Iraq in the defense of Freedom and the American Way Of Life).

But I'm having a tougher time figuring out the Republican Party Position On 'Do As I Say An Not As I Do' (ie, who gets to make the rules of law).

We have the Bush Administration in support of Judge Roberts making the case that it is the legislative branch, not the judicial, who should make the laws.

And this may sound elementary, but it's a very, very important concept, that a judge come to the bench with an understanding that his job, his or her job, is not to make the laws. That's for the Congress.

A reasonable position, really. At it's heart is a debate regarding the line at which interpretation of the law crosses into creating law, wherein "activist judges", who are bad, (as opposed to "somnambulic judges"?) take the liberty of their position too far. (Wait, aren't we in Iraq defending liberty? Never mind).

I happen to agree with the separation of powers. It has served us reasonably well for the past couple hundred years (although in the Broad Sweep Of History this is a still a pretty short time when compared with some prior forms of government, like the Roman Republic of over 400 years, or the Roman Empire of same).

But I also happen to agree that much of the time the legislation that passes into law is vague to the point of passing for fog, and it is up to the judiciary in this case to help clarify specifics. I am also quite happy that our country's history saw a court like that of the 60's who determined that blatant racism was not in line with this countries better principles, even though there were in fact very clear and specific laws in some states saying the opposite.

So I'm about to declare my usual degree of success (slight) in understanding the relative positions in the debate, when I get thrown for an even bigger loop. This came from Republican Governator Schwarzenegger of California.

You see, the California Legislature (yes, the branch that the other Republicans say should be making the laws, and not the courts) recently passed a law through both houses which clearly stated a lawful acceptance of marriage between two humans of the same gender.

But the Governator vetoed this law, stating "it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts." (???)

I guess the correct answer in politics is that it is "Us" who should make the laws, whether "Them" agree with us or not, and as long as the outcome is in agreement with Our position, great. If not, then we need to Change the rules on how to Make the rules until Our rules prevail.