The Georgia Supreme Court has announced its decision.
It's not one everyone is going to agree with, but it's the decision the panel has made.
They're NOT going to act.
Georgia's Supreme Court had recently been asked to either approve or reject a set of draft rules for the new Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission.
The high court actually declined to act at all, citing a separation of powers that they justices thought prevented this from being a decision they could make.
The court said that "state justices will not decide to approve or reject the rules drafted by state lawmakers due to a lack of judicial power to do so."
It gets a little bit confusing when you factor in the idea that their stated lack of jurisdictional power is because of the wording contained in this specific piece of legislation.
Does this open the door for future rules to be written in a way that excludes courts from being able to determine if they are in agreement with America's Constitution or not?
If so, it could be a very slippery slope trying to decide what judges are allowed to do based on the way different pieces of legislation are written.
"Because we are under no legal directive to take action, the most prudent course for us is to decline to take action without conclusively deciding any constitutional question," the court said.
The justices said it was a result of "grave doubts we have the constitutional power to take any action on the draft standards and rules," that the judges decided not to act.
What do you think about this story?
Do you think that the judges were simply doing their job and made the right decision, or could this change the entire precedent of our judicial system moving forward?
Only time will tell.
For now, give us your best guess in the comment section below.
To read more about this story, click on the source here.