Judicial Independence – Pros and Cons
By Save America Foundation
Todays blog comes from guest writer Jason A Brown. He has written several blogs here for me. Enjoy and as always please like and share.
Judicial Independence – Pros and Cons
Hamilton’s Federalist #78 and its relevance in today’s political minefield.
America’s founding fathers knew tyranny, as they experienced it first-hand living under British rule. In all their wisdom, I don’t think that they could have foreseen the corruption and evil that we are dealing with today. Federalist #78, written by Alexander Hamilton, sheds some light on the subject of judicial independence, and the role that it plays in the function of the judiciary. In this essay, Hamilton surmises that the judiciary would always be the least dangerous to the God given rights of the American citizenry. We have witnessed first hand in recent years, a judiciary that is perfectly comfortable with legislating from the bench. We have watched as the courts condone lawlessness, promote unconstitutional government overreach, and even legitimize the murder of unborn children. From where we stand today, it seems like the judicial branch has become the most dangerous government branch to human rights. Activist progressive judges use the courts to advance social justice, equity, and communism disguised as green energy policy, while ignoring the US Constitution and the rule of law.
With all of this in mind, is judicial independence still a necessity in this world of judicial corruption and outside influence on the rulings of our men and women that hold a place on the bench? The simple answer is yes. There is no perfect system. There will always be advantages and disadvantages to particular aspects of our American system of government. Knowing that there will be pros and cons, an independent judiciary makes sense. This independence does not allow checks and balances to work in the case of an unconstitutional ruling. Because Justices are given the task of interpreting the meaning of the constitution, it leaves the possibility that an activist on the bench, can make the constitution into whatever he/she wants in to be. Once again, no check on judicial rulings, no matter how bad the ruling, and no matter what the societal consequences. Keep in mind, because Hamilton believed that the judiciary did not pose any threat to peoples’ rights, the lack of oversight by the other two branches wasn’t a problem in his mind.
Remember that our inherent rights come from God, not from government. What is required to recognize rights, is that the government acknowledge the divine presence that sanctions these rights of man. We have seen the courts create rights out of thin air, to pander to special interests like homosexual marriage, access to abortion, and many other government created rights that are brought into the mix to buy votes, or please major political donors.
On the plus side, and independent judiciary and lifetime appointments allow for decisions to be made on tough issues, without fear of political repercussions from the electorate. So, the independence is still needed. I don’t think that the founders took blackmail into account as it is used all the time in the political world to keep people from falling out of line when it comes to the official narrative. This was the nature of the operation of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, setting up sexual encounters for the elite class with minors and recording the encounters to have something to hang over their head, to keep them in line.
Our Judicial system is still the best game in town compared to what they have elsewhere. It is still effective in most cases, and the vulnerability that exists is going to be there no matter how much you tweak the system. We have to remember the reason why we need a government at all. Because man is fallible and we are subject to greed, jealousy, hatred, and many other human emotions that can affect how we act in society. James Madison once said, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
©Jason A Brown. All rights reserved.
This article is courtesy of DrRichSwier.com, an online community of citizen journalists, academics, subject matter experts, and activists to express the principles of limited government and personal liberty to the public, to policy makers, and to political activists. Please visit DrRichSwier.com for more great content.
