Great post on the New Jersey case:

Either the New Jersey State Constitution — as defined by the governing precedents applying it — compels the legal conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court or it does not. That is the only relevant issue. It’s not a matter of picking and choosing which issues we think it would be nice for a court to resolve and which ones we’d sort of prefer — given our subjective druthers — the court leave to the will of the majority.

…

Courts have no right to “stay out of” debates over laws if those laws violate constitutional guarantees.

…

It is impossible — at least without falling into total recklessness — to simply look at the result of a court case, decide whether or not you like it, and then pronounce it as either judicially sound or judicially irresponsible. Yet that is what virtually all of these commenters are doing who are condemning the New Jersey Supreme Court for “judicial activism.”

Read the whole thing – it’s really good.