Judicial Dictatorship

Michael Graham makes a point similar to mine and Greg Krehbiel's at The Corner:

ONE POSSIBLE BENEFIT OF THE SCHIAVO DEBATE is that it may revive the debate over the principle of judicial review. Why should the courts have the final say in a difficult case like this? Why should a panel of judges be able to override the will of the people of Florida... or anyone else, for that matter?

Most Americans accept as a matter of course the judicial tyranny that Jefferson and other founders rejected out of hand. When the legislature passed a law designed specifically to override the court decisions that doomed Schiavo to death, the immediate reaction was "Hey, that's not right!" The courts are almost certain to respond by throwing out the new law.

But why should the courts, the least democratic and representative of all branches of government, win this fight? Why not let the legislature make this tough decision and then go back and face the people in elections next year?

There's an excellent book on the topic from two law professors at the University of South Carolina, titled "Judicial Dictatorship."

When I heard an FM D.J. from Florida use the phrase "judicial review" on the air, I knew we were in new territory. Is this an opportunity to restore some balance between democracy and the courts?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 10/22/03 11:28:11 AM
Categorized as Terri Schindler Schiavo.