provisions convert individual judges into "sacred vessels.” Instead, as we have detailed, those provisions were added to the constitution in an effort to settle a dispute between the executive and legislative branches over judicial selection. The majority's reliance on the judicial selection and retention provisions in an effort to distinguish persuasive federal case law is simply misplaced. The majority lists several other differences between the FMA and section 78-3-31. It makes no effort, however, to explain why these superficial differences are significant and, more important, why they dictate the wholesale rejection of a large body of persuasive federal case law. 12 . Cf. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 848, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 3255, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Pacemaker, 725 F.2d at 541 ("[W]e recognize
recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government holding that one purpose of separation of powers doctrine is to safeguard litigants right to have claim decided before judge  free from potential domination by other branches of government citations omitted recognizing separation of powers doctrine holding rfra is inconsistent with smith and violates the separation of powers doctrine recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine