http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=519&u=/ap/20040312/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged_9&printer=1

I know how some of you people love this term "legislating from the bench".
My questions are:

Is it only "legislating from the bench" when the judge makes a decision that you don't agree with?

If a judge finds this woman guilty, is it any different from what happened in Massachusetts concerning the gay marriage issue?

BTW, it seems amazing that this woman ever got pregnant in the first place. She's quite a hotty, no?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33854

Just answer the questions.

It is in my opinion a major flaw that judges can essentially interpert the law to mean whatever they want.
If the supreme court decided that, for example, the second amendment meant, no guns are permitted within the borders of the United States period. then thats what it would mean legally.
The founding fathers seemingly overlooked the fact that while making it extremely difficult to amend the constitution, they made it fairly easy to ignore it via the judicial branch of the government. This has allowed blatantly unconstitutional activities to take place during the reign of the current US regime.
I suppose if a judge made a ruling that was in clear contradiction of the constitution that would be legislating from the bench, but neither the gay marriage nor abortion issues are clearly layed out in the constitution, so its really not applicable there.

Interesting that you would choose the Second Amendment as you're example, but thank you for your input.