Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 841:
Judge-made law. A phrase used to indicate judicial decisions
which construe away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them
the legislature never intended. It is perhaps more commonly used
as meaning, simply, the law established by judicial precedent and decisions.
Laws having their source in judicial decisions as opposed to laws having
their source in statutes or administrative regulations.
[Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 841]
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
In
the light of their experience, the Framers of the Constitution chose
to keep the judiciary dissociated from direct participation in the legislative
process. In asserting the power to pass on the constitutionality
of legislation, Marshall and his Court expressed the purposes of the
Founders. See Charles A. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution.
But the extent to which the exercise of this power would interpenetrate
matters of policy could hardly have been foreseen by the most prescient.
The distinction which the Founders drew between the Court's duty
to pass on the power of Congress and its complementary duty not to enter
directly the domain of policy is fundamental. But, in its actual
operation, it is rather subtle, certainly to the common understanding.
Our duty to abstain from confounding policy with constitutionality demands
perceptive humility as well as self-restraint in not declaring unconstitutional
what in a judge's private judgment is deemed unwise and even dangerous.
Even when
moving strictly within the limits of constitutional adjudication, judges
are concerned with issues that may be said to involve vital finalities.
The too easy transition from disapproval of what is undesirable to condemnation
as unconstitutional has led some of the wisest judges to question the
wisdom of our scheme in lodging such authority in courts. But it is
relevant to remind that, in sustaining the power of Congress in a case
like this, nothing irrevocable is done. The democratic process, at all
events, is not impaired or restricted. Power and responsibility remain
with the people, and, immediately, with their representatives. All the
Court says is that Congress was not forbidden by the Constitution to
pass this enactment and that a prosecution under it may be brought against
a conspiracy such as the one before us. [341 U.S. 553]
[Dennis
v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)]
"This court has no authority
to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our
duty is to execute the law, not to make
it."
[U.S.
v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]