Are you comfortable with the idea that judges have been so responsible for deciding the cases that courts hear? In our previous discussions we have talked about Congress wanting to pass off decisions to the courts, but the flipside is also true - judges are not always happy to decide controversial cases. As such, they have adopted what can be termed "prudential jurisprudence," the idea that there are simply some cases they cannot or should not decide. This at times causes them to stay their hand when the average person believes they should act. What do you think of it? Have judges properly exercised their discretion? If not, what would you do differently?