The S.C. Supreme Court took a step for clarity last month when it temporarily suspended a law requiring out-of-state doctors to obtain a temporary medical license before offering expert testimony in state courts. Now it's the S.C. General Assembly's turn to clarify the issue by giving it a complete airing when the House and Senate return in January.

The court "cannot allow the administration of justice to be substantially impaired," the five-member court said in its Aug. 24 order.

The court correctly was acting on complaints against Act 385 approved by the General Assembly in June in the waning days of the legislative session.

Among those complaining was Duffie Stone, 14th Judicial Circuit solicitor, who said that the law could have a "huge impact on the criminal docket in Beaufort County," because he might not be able to rely on experts from across the border in Georgia to testify in S.C. courts.

The act's intent was to make experts accountable, according to Dr. Louie Costa, vice president of the state Board of Medical Examiners, by making them secure a temporary S.C. medical license.

Further clouding the issue is how a bill became law without a full airing by the appropriate legislative committees. Sen. Glenn McConnell, R- Charleston, told The Post and Courier that he was surprised by the provision. He is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that should have heard any discussion of expert testimony.

Swift justice requires that prosecutors be able to rely on a range of testimony to fill in the gaps that are necessary for a correct decision by a jury or a judge. The court already has rules in place that take care of people who perjure under oath -- and it is important that the legal system prosecute them.

The legislature handles hundreds of bills each year, and most of them have an impact on a large number of South Carolinians. Lawmakers should make sure that they understand the language in bills and its effect on people and institutions.

Had lawmakers not been so quick to approve the bill, instead sending them to the proper committees for scrutiny, they probably wouldn't be seeking clarity under an order from the Supreme Court.