It seems to me that the left doesn't really mean what it thinks it means when it talks about the independence of the judiciary.

Maryland Democrats concerned about the political fallout from last week's court ruling on same-sex marriage are considering a plan to block any final court ruling from taking effect until after the November elections.

The proposal would be offered in legislation by Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) that would freeze any decision from the state's highest court until the General Assembly has time to evaluate it.
[snip]
Although many Democrats, including Simmons, said they support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, they also said they recognize that the ruling could hurt the party during key elections this year -- the governor's office and a U.S. Senate seat are at stake.

They said the ruling could galvanize Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s conservative base, increasing Election Day turnout for him and for Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R), who is running for U.S. Senate.

"I don't want to see the gubernatorial election, or any other election, tangled up in this issue," said Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery).

This is a very interesting conflict, I think. Should the MD dems get behind the ruling because it favors their constituents, or delay the possible benefits to their gay constituents out of calculations regarding their own power? Should the MD legislature try to directly effect the timing of a court procedure out of the same political calculations?

Will dems say that legislative attempts to influence judicial proceedings were nation-shatteringly horrific in the Schiavo case, but a good idea in this case?