[kaoibciz] On judicial restraint and castigating the legislature

A judge (I'm imagining appellate court justice) makes a decision exercising judicial restraint (opposite of judicial activism or legislating from the bench). However, to effectively communicate the decision, the opinion must include a strongly worded castigation of the legislature, which, while it does have the authority to pass such a law, has failed to exercise the authority responsibly, and the people are encouraged to reverse the decision at the voting booth (or even in the jury box via jury nullification). (Opinions like this sometimes happen already.) It is the responsibility of the attorneys on one side or the other (or both) to make sure the judge has enough information on how the law came to be, perhaps researching about how corrupt the legislature is, naming names.

For major cases, the implementation of our democracy gets put on trial, in a harsh light.