Who decides constituionality?

I am not addressing the ongoing idiocy of the Illinois legislature.  No deep thinking or soul-searching is required to see that they are all voting against the wishes of their constituency.

A Judge (note the title) in South Florida (note the place) ruled that the legislature's revision to the "Stand your ground" law was not constitutional, because the legislature doesn't have the authority to make and alter laws.

The story being referenced is here:
(http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/miami-judge-new-stand-your-ground-law-unconstitutional-n779436)

First some detail.

1.  The revised law stated that prosecutors must provide clear and compelling evidence that someone was not defending themselves, before they could bring charges against them.  That is, it clarified that the burden of proof is on the state. You know, the same legal principle that applies to all criminal charges.

2.  We have judges who make decisions about constitutionality.  They are called "Justices".

3.  Despite certain media outlet claims, Zimmerman's attorneys did not use the "Stand your ground" law in his defense.  They didn't need to.

4.The constitution of the state of Florida, like all states, follows the federal version fairly closely.  Specifically that the different branches of government have separated powers.  In short, the executive can veto, the legislative passes laws, and the judiciary enforces and interprets those laws.

        4a.  Judges enforce.  Justices interpret and rule on constitutionality.

5.  The judge ruled that the Florida Supreme court should have adjusted the law, not the legislature.

        5a.  That is not in their authority.


So in this case: an unqualified judge (not a justice, who by the way, rule as a team) gave a ruling he has no legal authority to, was one hundred percent wrong in the decision, (the legislature makes laws, all the supreme court can do as approve, reject, and interpret) and was trying to "legislate from the bench".

This is literally the reason we have a separation of powers.

Happy Independence Day.

Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act.

       No doubt all of you who read this regularly (Both of you) have been waiting for my snarky, philosophmoric ramblings on the topic.  Today is your lucky day.  See, I can feel my back locking up again and since the muscle relaxer I was prescribed made me break out in hives, I am using the same one Grampa did: Rye whiskey.  (Well, some kind of whiskey).  The two effects this course of treatment have are relaxation, and an even greater degree of apathy about whether you want my opinion, or not.
       I will not go into the politics of this issue.  I don't need to.  The Supreme Court is currently deciding if the individual mandate is within the scope of powers of the Congress, to make law.  The implications of this ruling stand to change more than just the law most of you refer to as "Obamacare".  This decision could knock the legs out of many long standing federal programs.
       The indications are that the votes will be split along party lines.  There are currently five Republican-appointed justices, and four Democrat-appointed ones.  This is what makes me sad, angry, frustrated, and pitchfork-grabby.  If they are deciding a matter of constitutionality, party affiliation should not matter at all.  This is true for all decisions they face, and true regardless of their, or anyone else's party affiliation.  And yet, here we are, staring down a court that, despite being sworn to uphold the Constitution, gives no indication this is even a consideration.
       In short: the two-party system had corrupted the highest court in the land.  That is really all I can say on this without being seen as taking sides.  Although if I were to make a statement on this topic, it would be this:  A federal healthcare program is an all-or-nothing proposition.  What we have is severely "semicolon-ing" (half-a$$-ing) the idea.