Yes, Walter - judges are supposed to uphold the constitution.
Walter Olson at Point Of Law attempts to use sarcasm to question court rulings in Illinois:
A right under the state constitution to unlimited damage awards, permanently and forever, no matter what elected state lawmakers may have to say about the matter?
As Walter no doubt knows, this is the way the system is supposed to work. No matter what state lawmakers may desire, the courts are not supposed to uphold laws that are unconstitutional. The fact that (as Walter points out) this is the third time this has happened in Illinois shows two things:
- The "reform" movement can't afford to buy a constitutional amendment to get their way;
- A group of state lawmakers doesn't give a damn about the Illinois constitution.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with judges refusing to trample the constitution. You would think that would be obvious, given the constitutional crises here and in Pakistan.
On a related matter, I just noted at TortDeform, insurers don't need "reform" to operate profitably in Illinois.