Does the term “checks and balances” mean anything to you?

Friday, November 12th, 2004 @ 5:45 pm | Current Events

Today, John Ashcroft criticized federal judges who had the audacity to rule against Bush administration policies.

‘Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called “a profoundly disturbing trend” among some judges to interfere in the president’s constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

“The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war.”

“Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people,” Ashcroft said.’

How in flipping hades did this man ever become in charge of the Justice Department? Especially considering that he lacks the basic understanding of the judicial branch’s purpose to provide “checks and balances” to the other two branches of government; a fact that every first semester poli sci student knows.

While Bush, Ashcroft and Co. have been subverting constitutional and international law to execute their war on terror, federal justices have been doing their job in reviewing said policies and bringing them closer in line to constitutional and international law. Ashcroft is correct in saying that the courts are not accountable to the people. They’re not accountable to the executive branch either. The only authority that courts are accountable to is the law, and we have a well-established system of appeals to contest erroneous court decisions.

It’s a good thing this man has resigned from his job. Let’s hope his replacement has more sense than him.

Comments are closed.