substitute their evaluation of legislative facts for that of the legislature.”); Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729, 83 S. Ct. 1028, 10 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1963) (“Under the system of government created by our Constitution, it is up to legislatures, not courts, to decide on the wisdom and utility of legislation.”). The courts are not in a position to agree or disagree with our legislature’s balancing of public policy interests or its determination as to which animals will be protected and in what manner this protection will be afforded. See Rousso, 170 Wn.2d at 84. Indeed, the judiciary’s making such public policy decisions would not only ignore the separation of powers, but would stretch the practical limits of the judiciary. See Brown v. Owen, 165 Wn.2d 706, 718-19, 206 P.3d 310 (2009) (<HOLDING>). This court is not equipped to legislate what
recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine recognizing separation of powers doctrine recognizing the separation of powers implicit in the washington constitution and the relevance of justiciability concerns like those addressed by the federal political question doctrine citing baker v carr 369 us 186 217 82 s ct 691 7 l ed 2d 663 1962 recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government holding that the presidential privilege is inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution