Democrats only get excited about the balance of power when they aren't in power. Roosevelt thought nothing of trying to drop the hammer on the judicial branch to get his way.

Right now, the judiciary seems to have become a convenient way to get around the fact that Democrats haven't been doing that well at the polls.

When I was a kid, passing new legislation to deal with a court ruling was considered a normal part of the process. Whether Federal legislation was appropriate depends on who hauled the Federal judges into it in the first place, I suppose.

You have to get past the Terri Schiavo case, and look at the larger picture. There has been a marked tendency for legislation and laws to become irrelevant, going back quite some time. During the last two elections we were treated to case after case of election laws being "overturned" for the benefit of one party or another, simply by looking around until some judge decided the law was no good. Here in California, referendums voted on by the citizens have been consistently neutralized on judicial whims.

"Constitutional" has become a matter of opinion, with little objective basis in reality. That something can be constitutional one year, and unconstitutional the next year, when no changes have been made in either the constitution or the law, should bother people a bit more.

Add to that the fact that many judges have lifetime appointments, and you start to have a problem.

You worry about the balance of the branches of government. I worry that voters, already concerned about voting from constant leftist attacks on the validity of the election process, are going to be further convinced that their votes and representatives don't mean anything.

I know it's an article of faith with Democrats that if they are out of power, it is because some awful injustice has been done somewhere, an injustice that needs to be corrected.

Get over it.