Apologies for getting off the subject here.  It's a fascinating subject about which everybody has an opinion.  My question is for Mr. Ahern regarding his statement in this thread: 

"The court and the legislature are the parties entrusted with making law."

I have always thought that lawmaking was the domain of the legislative branch and that the judicial branch was charged with executing the law as written by the legislative branch.  Or, in the case of the highest courts, determining whether the law cuts constitutional muster and overturning those that don't.

I understand that precedent is given lots of deference because of the desire not to "reinvent the wheel" in each case.  But if a precedent is based on no law, should that precedent be deferred to?  Are the powers of government not separate for a reason?  Do I need to go back to civics 101?