April 8, 2009

When the Dictator Branch Takes Over for the Representative One

Justin Katz

Andrew McCarthy puts it well:

Courts are not there to resolve national controversies, to stand outside and above the United States. They were created as a sub-section of government to remedy individual injuries, and they were given no power to enforce their judgments. That, indeed, is why Hamilton (in Federalist No. 78) anticipated that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" branch: It would be "least in a capacity to annoy or injure" the "political rights of the Constitution." In fact, the law of "standing," which addresses what grievances litigants may bring before courts, teaches that the more a controversy affects the body politic rather than the individual citizen, the less appropriate it is for judicial resolution. It is for just such controversies that we have political rights.

We're on track to cede our rights of self-governance to a global judiciary supported by an aristocracy of bureaucrats. Needless to say, we'd be better off if the cart were derailed.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

The "dictator branch"? Really Justin?

Which "global" judge has been infringing your rights lately Justin?

Posted by: Pragmatist at April 8, 2009 4:51 PM

You'll note that I put "global judiciary" in the future, not the past.

I'll note that sometimes you have to actually read the article to which I link for a post's title to make sense.

Posted by: Justin Katz at April 8, 2009 9:54 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.