That opinion may or may not be true. Personally, I value inside criticism much more than outside criticism, because insiders usually know better where the bodies are burried. Outside criticism often aims at inconsistency with some external norms, which IMHO is not a very effective form of criticism. As a Sufi proverb has it, a fool tries to convince me with his arguments, a wise man - with my own.
As far as your assertion that judges make the law is concerned - how about the sentencing guidelines? (I almost got a job with the DoJ doing research in connection with establishing them).
> your suggestion that people who don't like the law try having
> it changed (i assume rather than practicing jury
> nullification) shows no understanding of
> the political system. ever try having a law changed
> youself? you don't
> live in an elementary democracy.
I think it is a rather simplistic view, albeit quite popular in the dissident circles. A more accurate picture is that it depends what laws and under what circumstances. For example, US has probably one of the most progressive rape shiled and gender discrimination laws in the world, decent consumer protection laws, but quite restrictive labor laws. The passage of a particular laws depends on the configuration of interest groups at any particular time, and the passage of a law intended to benefit one powerful group may incidentally benefitr other much less powerful groups. Bankruptcy lawas may be a case in point.
Another issue - subjecting the legal system to popular vote would likely create a "tyranny of the majority" which would not necessarily be such a good thing for various minorities, especially those less popular ones (like gays and lesbians).
Wojtek