Judicial Insanity
Back to the Lying Lawyer's Page

washingtonpost.com

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 22, 2005; Page A17

Provocation is no excuse for derangement. And there has been plenty of provocation: decades of an imperial judiciary unilaterally legislating radical social change on the flimsiest of constitutional pretexts. But while that may explain, it does not justify the flailing, sometimes delirious attacks on the judiciary mounted by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and others in the wake of the Terri Schiavo case.

DeLay is threatening judges involved in that case with unspecified retribution. He said that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be held "accountable" for using international law in deciding a recent (death penalty) case. He wants congressional hearings to reinterpret the "good behavior" clause of lifetime judicial tenure to make good behavior mean not what it has meant for two centuries -- honesty and propriety -- but good constitutional behavior. Do we really want Congress deciding that?

DeLay is wrong about the Schiavo case. I think the law was a bad law, but the trial judge applied it properly. I think the judge assessed the medical evidence incorrectly, but that is a matter of interpretation, not of judicial impropriety or denial of due process. There is nothing here with which to threaten this judge or the judicial system.

But at least DeLay was coherent. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) wandered somewhere off the Pacific Coast Highway when, on the Senate floor, he suggested a connection between "some recent episodes of courthouse violence" and judicial activism -- as if courtroom gunmen are disappointed scholars who kill in the name of Borkian originalism. Even worse was a Washington meeting of over-the-top activists led by Phyllis Schlafly that issued a manifesto for the restoration of God to our constitutional system.

Let us have a bit of sanity here. One of the glories of American democracy is the independence of the judiciary. The deference and reverence it enjoys are priceless assets. The Supreme Court is the only institution that could have ended the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000 with the immediacy, finality and, yes, legitimacy that it did. (True, liberals, who for half a century employed judicial fiat to enact their political agenda, have been whining for five years about this particular judicial exercise. But the critical point is that, whine or not, the ruling was accepted as law.) Moreover, and more generally, judicial independence and supremacy are necessary checks on the tyranny of popular majorities.

Have that independence and supremacy been abused? Grossly. What other advanced democracy would radically legalize abortion by judicial decree rather than by democratic will expressed through legislatures or referendums? What sane democracy allows four unelected robed eminences in Massachusetts to revolutionize the very definition of marriage, the most ancient institution in society?

This is not just deeply undemocratic. It is politically crazy. Democracies work as stable social entities because when people are allowed to settle issues themselves by debate and ballot, they are infinitely more likely to accept the results when they lose. To deny them that participation is to risk instability and threaten social peace.

It was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that Roe v. Wade "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue." Whenever such an obvious sociological truth is pointed out, proponents of judicial imperialism immediately resort to their trump card: Brown v. Board of Education and the courts' role in ending Jim Crow.

But Brown was different. The race cases were cases of a disenfranchised citizenry. The representative branches of government were legitimately superseded because they were not representative. Millions of blacks could not vote. Millions of blacks could not participate in civic life. The courts had to act to end this aberration and injustice, and, to their glory, they did.

And they have lived off that glory ever since. The prestige the courts inherited from Brown fueled their arrogant appropriation of legislative power in areas radically different and suffering no disenfranchisement -- abortion, gay rights, religion in the public square. For decades they have been creating law, citing emanations from penumbras of the Constitution visible only to their holinesses.

This is all true and deeply depressing. But the answer is not to assault the separation of powers. Certainly not to empower Congress to regulate judicial decision-making by retroactively removing lifetime appointees. The non-deranged way to correct the problem is to appoint a new generation of judges committed to judicial modesty.

Yet the recent eruptions of DeLay, Cornyn and some of their fellows may, like FDR's court-packing overreaching in 1937, have a salutary effect after all -- scaring the bejesus out of judges, maybe even shocking them into a little bit of humility, something that does not seem to come to them naturally.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Comments: See the last paragraph.

Reply 1 - Posted by: cap MarineTet68, 4/22/2005 12:53:59 AM WOW! I haddda calm down and read the whole thing. Thanks to poster for the suggestion. The Hammer comes down - again - HARD on the side of reason.

Reply 2 - Posted by: doubting thomas, 4/22/2005 12:57:49 AM It goes much deeper and farther back than Terri Schiavo, she was just the straw that broke the camel's back for DeLay. Some of these Federal Judge's idiotic rulings date back over fifty years. They have in many cases assumed the other two branches of American Government in their delusions of power and granduer. They rule and then call it the Law of the Land. Congress makes laws.

Reply 3 - Posted by: Photoonist, 4/22/2005 12:59:03 AM I do not believe the judges will be scared. They are too secure in their position of having reinterpreted laws way beyond their original intent to get to the destinations they desired, overruling even propositions approved by the people. The traditional balance of power has IMO been tipped as judges are enacting their own new laws under the guise of interpretation. It may eventually take some kind of constitutional amendment to address the issue.

Reply 4 - Posted by: Phil_hk, 4/22/2005 2:59:55 AM Charlemange is once again correct but, I think he understands the depth of anger at activist judges. He is right however in his depiction of DeLay in this instance. What should possibly be done is is to institute some sort of re-nomination process for judges after 10 years or even a simple term limit. It is appauling that are still a few, (probably very few) judges appointed by Nixon or Johnson.

Reply 5 - Posted by: BoBo the King, 4/22/2005 4:57:15 AM Krauthammer is dead wrong on this, as he was wrong to call the Schiavo bill a ''legal travesty'' (without mentioning anything about it that was unconstitutional or even ill-advised). He doesn't understand the monumental arrogance of judges. They won't be scared -- they won't even notice. They are wrapped in a cocoon of self-importance that couldn't be penetrated by a howitzer. While Cronyn's statement was strange, to lump Tom DeLay's comments in as an example of ''derangement'' is simply stupid. Even Krauthammer's description of those comments doesn't come close to describing derangement. The Doctor is out to lunch. Real reform is needed, not just vague hopes that renegade judges will be ''scared''.

Reply 6 - Posted by: Maybeth, 4/22/2005 6:12:05 AM Nearing the end of Charles's column is mention that the 'non-deranged way to correct the problem is to appoint a new generation of judges committed to judicial modesty.' I believe he would agree that the current administration has been 'trying' to appoint judges for quite some time. But, the obstructionism from the left has halted the process.

Reply 7 - Posted by: Happy Katy, 4/22/2005 6:26:01 AM This body was destroyed by Earl Warren so many years ago, and needed to have changes made then and ever since. What we see now as the abuses was instigated by him and emboldened so many others since.

Reply 8 - Posted by: 49 Ford, 4/22/2005 6:57:34 AM Poster #5 nails it. Very well said.

Reply 9 - Posted by: saryden, 4/22/2005 7:10:26 AM While I watch FOXNEWS every day and usually agree with and greatly appreciate Charles on the panel, I think the caption of this article applies more to his thinking in this case than to those he describes. He may be getting too full of himself from all the adulation he receives for his astuteness. He describes Delay's

Reply 10 - Posted by: saryden, 4/22/2005 7:24:17 AM I'll try to finish: He describes Delay's "flailing, sometimes delirious attacks" and Cornyn as being "somewhere off the Pacific Coast Highway." Then HE goes on to criticize the juciciary for gross abuse of the independence and supremacy of that branch's power. Finally, he allows that Delay, Cornyn, and Schlafly behavior may have a salutory in scaring the judiciary into "a little bit of humility." Is it that he has become the final authority, and only he can criticize, rather than high, elected officials? Shrink needed.

Reply 11 - Posted by: oudry, 4/22/2005 7:32:18 AM Remember what Shakespeare said (who said you would never use anything you learned in High School?): 'First of all, let's kill all the lawyers.' If memory serves...that would include all the judges too, right? I don't know if it's the black robes they wear or it's something that's put in the water they drink out of the ubiquious tumbler they always have on their desks, but these people confuse the bench with the throne. Remember what happened to Louis XVI. Coupez lui la tete.

Reply 12 - Posted by: seattlekid, 4/22/2005 7:33:52 AM I will say it again and again till a few more people get it. Our Constitution gives our Congress the power to control the Courts and this is done in Article 3 Section 2.that says The Supreme Court has a lot of authority "With such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. I have to wonder if those on the Supreme Court have ever read the Constitution!

Reply 13 - Posted by: smokehouse, 4/22/2005 7:53:42 AM Well said # 12 but...... The minority in congress and the MSM see the court as their alley. No way in God's green acres are they going to help "reform" the courts. It's through these rouge judges that they can force their liberal agenda on the American people. It's the same agenda that they will never be able to pass through votes in congress.

Reply 14 - Posted by: GOPlease, 4/22/2005 7:54:33 AM What #5 said....wrote.

Reply 15 - Posted by: Sludge, 4/22/2005 7:57:49 AM I respectfully disagree with the good Doctor. Judges who abuse their Constitutional powers need to be IMPEACHED and REMOVED. Period. The majority of the people (by whose consent gov't has powers) believe that the Constitution has be seriously harmed by the reckless actions of these Louis XIV's in robes. The only way to hold them accountable is to impeach them for violating the Constitution. Congress should be up in arms when these Colonel Kurtz jurists usurp their legislative powers. The people should rise up when their freedoms are taken by these petty tyrants. Alas, we all have found out that the political nobility is just a big taxpayer funded country club, where our rights and freedoms have little meaning or value.

Reply 16 - Posted by: nutiket, 4/22/2005 8:06:20 AM See F. Lee Levin's Men in Black for a more well-researched and reasoned take on the situation. Even Charles is entitled to be wrong occasionally.

Reply 17 - Posted by: nevernaught, 4/22/2005 8:27:33 AM At least DeLay is attempting to change an out of control judicial system by using his bully pulpit. Instead of trying to dumb down the rhetoric about a runaway court system, Krauthammer should be urging reform of what I perceive as a destructive mutating beast.

Reply 18 - Posted by: flavious_maximus, 4/22/2005 8:48:10 AM from the article: "The non-deranged way to correct the problem is to appoint a new generation of judges committed to judicial modesty." Well, right there is the problem. I believe 90% of students coming out of law school are all socialist, liberals. So if a judge is removed from his position, The demonRATS or Republicans are most likely to replace him/her with another stinking Bolshevik. This is what happened when Bush 41 appointed David Souter. Instead of a federalist, we got a flaming liberal homosexual deviant. The fillibustering of Bush nominations is just a charade. The Bolsheviks realize that they have completly taken over the universities so it's just a matter of time before they also control the entire United States judiciary.

Reply 19 - Posted by: Tulsa, 4/22/2005 9:01:03 AM This is strange. Dr. K takes both sides. Very unlike him. He gets it right after he gets it wrong. I don't like this piece, Sir, or this straddle. And fyi to all. Impeachment of judges is unnecessary. The seat is merely eliminated...or an entire court may be eliminated. Former Presidents have done this. I'm not clear if the legislature(s) are involved or not. I need to read up. Newt addresses this in his new book, but I don't have it yet.

Reply 20 - Posted by: citizen1, 4/22/2005 9:12:06 AM This is the weskest argument I can remember Krauthammer ever making. He's just wrong.

Reply 21 - Posted by: Hermoine, 4/22/2005 9:19:31 AM I usually agree with Krauthammer but he is all over the board on this one. DeLay and Cornyn have every right as legislatures to "attack" the courts for what "gross abuse" (Krauthammer's definition). We have found that the executive cannot act alone by just appointing "a new generation of judges committed to judicial modesty." Bush has been trying that for four and a half years and the allies of the courts, the Senate Democrats, have been stopping him at every turn. It is time for the legislature to step in and take action. If we continue down this road of judicial imperialism much longer, we are all surely doomed to be ruled by a group of 9 tyrants who cannot see beyond their own agendas and who are held to account by no one.

Reply 22 - Posted by: Harmony1, 4/22/2005 9:19:46 AM Agree with 5 and 12 and so on.... Peggy Noonan had an 'off day'....I suppose Krauthammer is entitled to one as well. We don't have the time to wait for each Activist Liberal Judge to be replaced by a Conservative Judge. Children are dying in Florida because Activist Judges decided they would allow Child Molestors back on the Streets instead of keeping them in Prison I believe that Krauthammer should research some of the 'decisions' that Liberal Judges have handed down; yet will never be held responsible for ....unfortunately, it's always some other innocent citizen who bears the Price for those 'decisions', and way too often, it's the little children. He says that the Judge ruled correctly in the Schiavo Case...I ask you, How can the Deliberate Starvation of a DisAbled Woman , to Achieve her Death, because an Adulterous Husband Wants It, Ever be considered Right? When Court after Court Refuses to even Review the Case after being Directed to do so, something is terribly wrong in the Courts.

Reply 23 - Posted by: Halfgenius, 4/22/2005 9:26:43 AM If...a very big IF the congress would seriously address this problem and ignore the belching and screams from the leftist media and impeach just one federal judge without much comment or fanfare, I think we'd see a rapid slowdown of this breach of constitutional authority. If there wasn't the precedence of having impeached a judge would make it much easier to do again. This is where the answer lies, not is "scaring" the judicial lordships!

Reply 24 - Posted by: hnddog, 4/22/2005 9:46:50 AM I normally look to Krauthammer for leadership not this time the posters here make far more common sense to me. If our Founder’s had waited like Krauthammer suggests we would still be ruled by the British.

Reply 25 - Posted by: lambdaman, 4/22/2005 9:49:23 AM I think the Good Doctor's point is that while hyperbole might work well for Ann Coulter it's an inappropriate response from Delay and Cornyn. Happily, unlike leftists/democraps, Mr. Krauthammer proposes a solution rather than just carping about the problem. That solution is to appoint Constitutionalist judges. What I think he misses is that some amount of activism, which might look like hyperbole, on the part of our legislators is going to be required to force the RINOs to stand up and be counted.

Reply 26 - Posted by: tnmartin, 4/22/2005 9:51:16 AM Dr. Krauthammer is wrong. I don't agree with the worship of 'independent judiciary'. While there is much to be said for a branch of government that restrains the passions of the moment, the principle of checks and balances precludes ANY branch of government from being independent. This check is precisely what Messrs. Cornyn and DeLay have been proposing. Criticism is neither an attack, nor ‘delirious’. It’s the give and take of freedom. The judiciary is not and should not be immune to criticism. There is good reason to say that the whole Schiavo process stunk. The courts thumbed their noses at the other branches, and merit criticism. The source of much of the anger comes when the citizens realize that their wishes expressed through their elected representatives count for nothing if judges have a differing personal whim. Without accountability, a dangerously unstable situation is created. Something must happen to check this runaway power. The fights over nominations are in recognition that real power now rests in the courts and that the side that controls the courts rules the land. This is not the right course for a free people.

Reply 27 - Posted by: Annalucia, 4/22/2005 9:54:24 AM ``I think the law was a bad law, but the trial judge applied it properly. I think the judge assessed the medical evidence incorrectly, but that is a matter of interpretation, not of judicial impropriety or denial of due process.'' Yeah, but when an incorrect interpretation leads to someone being ``judicially'' starved to death over two weeks, someone ought to be held responsible.

Reply 28 - Posted by: valleystorm, 4/22/2005 10:00:40 AM ...scaring the bejesus out of judges, maybe even shocking them into a little bit of humility, something that does not seem to come to them naturally. LOL!

Reply 29 - Posted by: Hermoine, 4/22/2005 10:03:44 AM #26 is dead right. And, I will take that point a bit further, the problem is that the Judiciary has not been acting according to the law but rather like legislators in deciding cases based on the passions of the moment.

Reply 30 - Posted by: Freedomlover, 4/22/2005 10:04:31 AM To change the judiciary, we first must change the legislature. We have taken the first step; we got a Republican majority. We must get conservative majority. No change will come about with liberals like Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Haggel, McCain, or Shays. Let them lose to a democrat. At the same time, we should concentrate on defeating democrats like Nelson (FL), Cantwell (WA) and Nelson (NE). Replace them with the likes of Thune and Coleman. Then we can change the judiciary.

Reply 31 - Posted by: Tulsa, 4/22/2005 10:12:36 AM yes...good job 26. well said indeed. judges should be put in their place. It is way past time. To BLEEP with international law or laws. it is the duty of a judge to interpret the Constitution which is not and never has been a 'living, breathing instrument' in need of change. The Constitution is what it is and I dayum well want it followed.

Reply 32 - Posted by: berlin, 4/22/2005 11:29:39 AM Methinks the good doctor himself has wandered off into the Atlantic. Wishful thinking isn’t going to fix this run amok judiciary.

Reply 33 - Posted by: yeahsuredad, 4/22/2005 11:36:23 AM The good doctor is out of the office today. If this is a life-threatening emergency, please read the fine contributions of T. Sowell (and others)on the same matter and come back next week.

Reply 34 - Posted by: yeahsuredad, 4/22/2005 11:44:39 AM "The non-deranged way to correct the problem is to appoint a new generation of judges committed to judicial modesty." True statement, but do we have another generation left? This cookie has crumbled. How do we find judges who have not been stewed in the celebrity and immodesty of limousines, body guards, huge salaries, imperial trappings, and fawning clerks? There is a certain cult of celebrity built up around our federal judges that must be broken.

Reply 35 - Posted by: HonestDon, 4/22/2005 11:46:47 AM I agree with Krauthammer more often than not, but this isn’t one of those times. We have a serious problem in the judiciary in our country and it is judges who fail, indeed refuse, to follow the law. It should have been apparent that such was becoming the “norm,” when Judge Bork was lambasted for even suggestion that the constitution means what it says. Since then there is no surer way to be disqualified than to be labeled “a constructionist.” If our Republican senate doesn’t grow some gonads in the near future, and exercise what very well may be its fleeting majority to appoint conservative judges, I fear for the republic, and am terrified by the thought of the society that will replace it.

Reply 36 - Posted by: Christie, 4/22/2005 11:55:34 AM IF the judges that abuse their constitutional powers are not just impeached but removed (that would take a miracle) then I would be astounded. They represent the lefties in this country and they if they didn't allow their hero, The Sink Emperor, to be removed from office then these little tyrants will stay on 'til they draw their last breath. If anyone has the right to call the Congressional involvement in the Shiavo case disgraceful it's Charles Krauthammer. I don't necessarily agree with him on this but again, the only person responsible for Terri's death is Michael Shiavo, period. Our gov't's hands were summarily tied.

Reply 37 - Posted by: booshkindoggin, 4/22/2005 12:00:35 PM I'm with the Hammer. The correct response is to vote in leaders who will appoint good judges, then urge them to do so.

Reply 38 - Posted by: Avikingman, 4/22/2005 12:02:58 PM The Pubbies called me this morning for money. I let loose about the judges, jello-backs and immigration. Then I told them no. Maybe this sort of thing will get their attention. Maybe.

Reply 39 - Posted by: Farragut square, 4/22/2005 12:15:35 PM Krauthammer is never, ever wrong. Time to re-think how we in the GOP maintain power during changing times.

Reply 40 - Posted by: shimmer128, 4/22/2005 12:36:23 PM When "assessing the medical evidence incorrectly" leads to the deliberate murder of a citizen, there can be no accomodation for the judge that ordered it. Period.

Reply 41 - Posted by: shamus, 4/22/2005 12:47:04 PM Judicial terms need to be limited. They shouldn't serve for life. Lifetime terms invite judges to remain in office until their health is frail and their mental capacity diminished. Terms of 20 years would deflect political pressures, but check the imperial power the judiciary exercises in America today.

Reply 42 - Posted by: janjan, 4/22/2005 1:24:06 PM I totally disagree with Krauthammer in this. There is such a thing as 'balance of power' in our government and the Judiciary have abused it mightily. Krauthammer makes the assertion that the judges are 'independent'. That is not constitutionally correct. The Congress does have the power of oversight in this case. The reason, obviously, that the Democrats so strongly oppose this is because they are using the judiciary to push through legislation that would not survive the ballot box. This has to stop.

Reply 43 - Posted by: Altera, 4/22/2005 1:26:11 PM Everything I've seen has said the law was applied correctly in the Schiavo case and that the Schindlers were "out-lawyered." That might mean the law has to be changed/modified and we folks have to prepare for a similar eventuality. What remains is the fact that President Bush has not been able to get his appeals court nominations through congress. Time is fleeting. The Senate needs a Hammer.

Reply 44 - Posted by: petie3, 4/22/2005 1:33:33 PM When Justice Kennedy invoked International Law he broke his oath. Notice should be taken and impeachment at least considered. This would fire a shot before the bows of the Arlen Spector types who like to show off their knowledge of Scottish law and so forth.

Reply 45 - Posted by: Gary O, 4/22/2005 1:52:08 PM The Schiavo case is a bad choice for those who want to highlight the problem of judicial activism. It was an example of judicial inactivity, and just possibly was appropriate. But Krauthammer is wrong if he thinks bad judges are going to be restrained by public scolding alone. We need to bring EVERY sort of pressure to bear.

Reply 46 - Posted by: doublenickel, 4/22/2005 2:09:43 PM If activist judges think the Constitution is a living breathing instrument, we better watch out. They may try to pull it's feeding tube!

Reply 47 - Posted by: saryden, 4/22/2005 2:21:31 PM I do not think the judge got the Schiavo case right and according to the law. Schiavo had in effect divorced Terri by taking a common-law wife and having a family with her. So he was no longer family.. but to my mind, strictly abiding by the perceived law was never the intent.. the intent was to set a precedent for euthanasia of costly patients "so that those with a future may be better served with available care." Next we'll have more judges making the decisions on who gets care and who is "allowed to die." Marxists!!

Reply 48 - Posted by: avxinphx, 4/22/2005 2:38:48 PM In yesterday's mail I got my annual membership & money request from the RNC. I packed everything in the postage paid envelope and sent it back to them with a note to the effect of: Until John Bolton is confirmed ~~ No Money! Until the rule change concerning judicial filibustering is brought up ~~ No Money! Until illegal immigration is addressed honestly ~~ No Money! Do I make myself clear, Boys?

Reply 49 - Posted by: YY4U, 4/22/2005 2:46:57 PM In the 40's the American Bolsheviks began a "bloodless" revolution. First they took over the bureaucracy (McCarthy was right which is why he had to be demonized and destroyed), then they took over the media (Carl Bernstein who brought down Nixon according to David Horowitz's book "Radical Son" was the son of known communists), and with 40 years of House and Senate domination by the Socialists (Democrats) were able to pack the judiciary with leftists. By 1992, they had it all: the three UNELECTED branches of government (Judiciary, Bureaucracy and Media) and the two ELECTED branches (Legislative and Executive). Then "we the people" caught on what was happening and UNELECTED the two branches (Legislative and Executive) over which we have jurisdiction. Didn't matter. The three unelected branches remained in power. Now the Bureaucracy feels under attack which is why "state" is fighting so hard against Bolton, the media is losing ground (which is why they're attacking Fox News and the Internet so viciously) and the Judiciary could topple if Bush gets his non-leftist nominees through.

Reply 50 - Posted by: YY4U, 4/22/2005 2:52:17 PM Just imagine what the Russian Bolsheviks would have done had -- at their moment of triumph -- Counterrevolotionaries arrived to rescue the Tsar and his family? They'd have acted NO DIFFERENT than the American Bolsheviks are acting now. Why is anybody surprised?

Reply 51 - Posted by: missy, 4/22/2005 3:08:50 PM I agree with Krauthammer, there are ways to deal with the judiciary and they include using wisdom, facts, and $$$$. I'm from Delay's home state and have NEVER liked him. He is shrill and a bully that doesn't comprehend this idea of respect. The court system in America could use some improvement but becareful what you wish for. The Supreme Court gave us Bush instead of Gore;thank heaven for that!

Reply 52 - Posted by: alltheway, 4/22/2005 3:49:06 PM The good doctor is out to lunch on this one. These progressive judges need to be stopped.now!!!

Reply 53 - Posted by: tootsweet, 4/22/2005 4:07:11 PM If there is to be a balance of power between our three parts of government, the contress must review and propose 'suggestions' to the president, review and consent to his conclusions and decisions and the president must sign the laws forthcoming. Suggesting that DeLay has no earthly reason or right or authority to change or review the performance of the judiciary, along with the concurrence of the president, simply misses the point of Article 3 of the Constitution and the effective utilization of the balance of power. The last time i looked, DeLay was the Leader of the Majority Party of the Congress. Meanwhile, Dr. K sees insufficient travesty in the failure of the Government to protect Terri's civil rights. He wrongly finesses murder into poor form, Peter. Disgraceful at best, better called warped.

Reply 54 - Posted by: hayakian, 4/22/2005 4:25:59 PM An "Independant Judiciary" and a "divided gov't of checks and balances" are mutually contradictory concepts. To be independant is to be free of any checks. We can have one or the other, but not both.