wonder if the judicial branch and its dangerousness comes more into play if the court does not apply the law to the facts of a particular case. How can something be dangerous if all it is doing is applying the law. For example,

if someone has the right to yell at police officers because of the 1st Amendment, how is affirming this right dangerous? Furthermore, if the Court determines that a state may not restrict a woman s right to choose because the Constitution provides so, how is this dangerous?

Wouldn t the element of danger really come to surface if the court made rulings contradictory to the Constitution?