Can a legal expert please explain to me how this can even happen? Shouldn't a judge somewhere be able to take one look at this and realize the ridiculousness of the whole thing and throw it out?
What needs to happen is 1) the legislature needs to change the law to include exceptions where appropriate and 2) the voters in that area need to take this case into consideration when the prosecutor comes up for reelection.
Furthermore, in the federal system the executive does not decide which laws to enforce. That's a dereliction of duty - he's supposed to enforce them all. Not doing your job is not part of "the design of checks and balances".
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. The legislature makes law. They can change it however they want. Veto is a different concept entirely.
>And the judicial branch can over turn laws that are deemed illegal.
No, the judicial branch can overturn laws that are unconstitutional. Laws cannot be illegal unless they're enacted illegally. For a judge to find a law unconstitutional he must have some textual basis for doing so, and "that doesn't seem fair" isn't enough to do it.
>There are a couple of absurdities in this case...
The law is absurd in many, many ways. But the judges are still supposed to apply it as written unless it's unconstitutional. In this case the law is constitutional, so that's not a legitimate avenue for the defendant to pursue.