Chronicles of the Kritarchy

It’s well past time the term kritarchy percolated into the public consciousness. It means rule by judges, and bears a lineage descending from ancient Israel. Thus making it particularly apt given the ethnic composition of the Court. Western civilization suffers no deficit of hurdles to its survival, though from a purely civics perspective I think few exceed the JQ: the judiciary question.

It was never anyone’s intent to fashion a government whereby preening goofballs in western Washington are granted the power to compel immigration officials to stand down across the country because Our Constitution requires Muslim saturation. That the actual source of this country’s alleged self-rule has never approved of this inflow is deemed wholly irrelevant. As we’ve noted here many times, the American people have again and again been the unwilling passengers of a power-drunk court. As a result of this judicial fiat (and federal bayonets) liberal anti-society has been shoved forward to full cultural preeminence, rather than growing mold naturally on a pierced, purple-haired corpse.

All of this long train of abuses, to borrow from the guy engraved on nickels, results from the doctrine of judicial review. This being a bald usurpation of the separation of powers granted to the court–by the court–in Marbury v. Madison. That decision should have prompted President Jefferson to burn the Supreme Court to the ground and toss its pretentious occupants into the Potomac. Instead the decision was allowed to stand, and the Kritarchy took its first wobbly steps.

By some accounts Jefferson was even more intellectually endowed than Ashley Judd, and so accurately estimated the eventual harvest from what had just been sown.

The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.

The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete act of suicide. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow… The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.

I hope you’ll spare the time to absorb those remarks. And how every one of his fears have come to blossom in the rich soil of man’s self-importance.

Of course that brings us back to Trump, a bow-tie, and a pompous panel of Ninth Circuit philosopher kings. I read the 29 page opinion and marveled at several elements. For one, the assertion that Washington state suffered “irreparable” damage through a temporary curtailment of Maghrebi squatters. This in contrast to the apparently ephemeral nature of Americans being colonized, parasitized, and perforated by them. I also enjoyed this piece of rationalization:

To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war.

Haha. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Supreme Court will determine who may do what. Well the people are grateful for the court’s benign gesture of clarity. And you will also notice the rote “counseling of deference” to the political branches on occasions of political matters. This being counsel the court always offers itself, but never actually heeds.

All of which leaves me bitterly relieved that Trump has apparently decided to withdraw his order rather than pursue it to the highest star chamber.

Relieved because he was going to lose. Not from the frailty of his constitutional position, but because the Constitution had no role. He needed five out of eight votes to overturn. He didn’t have them. And no words written by either his solicitor or James Madison was going to provide them. The law has nothing to do with it.

And certain rejection was the upside. It is completely conceivable that a five leftist majority (Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, and Wise Lat) would have taken this succulent opportunity to add another glowing chapter to the Court’s history of landmark legislation. So imagine if this majority colluded to remake immigration law from the roots, just as it recently did the ancient institution of marriage. Borders place an undue burden on the free movement of peoples, and at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. As a result, we find immigration restriction to be unconstitutional. I assure you, there would be no deficit of gall or rhetorical gas to drive the decision.

Under that plausible scenario, Trump would not only be rejected, but put in the highly uncomfortable position of being told his entire campaign platform is now illegal. And that’s where the bitter part of my sentiment begins. Because such a ruling with such a president just might be sufficient to instigate the constitutional crisis that has frankly been long overdue.

Politicians must pay their constituents lip service before betraying them. Their campaign promises are thus another compliment vice pays to virtue. Courts are under no such obligation. Their edicts are not responsive to popular appeal, and can not be replaced by popular vote. Their rule reduces a free and sovereign people to mere litigants.

A kritarchy is not the antithesis of republican government, but it is far on the opposite pole. It is a form of rule that was never ratified by any parties but those on the court itself. As a result it carries all the moral heft of titles self-bestowed by an African dictator.

I dissent.


14 thoughts on “Chronicles of the Kritarchy

  1. Pingback: Chronicles of the Kritarchy | Reaction Times

  2. The solution to the issue of federal judges acting as philosopher-kings is to pare back the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to hear questions arising under the constitution. Full stop.

    The US Supreme Court is established by Article III of the constitution, and it’s jurisdictional scope is set forth therein. Neither the executive nor the legislative branch can change this.

    By contrast, while the constitution authorizes the creation of a lower (i.e., district and appellate) courts, there is no *requirement* in the constitution to establish a system of lower federal courts. Lower federal courts are established by federal law and their subject matter jurisdiction is similarly defined by statute.

    Congress and the President can amend federal law (28 U.S.C. 1331) to remove, or severely limit, the original jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. This is the constitutional and correct remedy to an over-reaching judicial branch.

    As an historical aside related to your post, the first Congress did not grant the system of lower federal courts original jurisdiction over federal questions *precisely* because they understood that it would make the judicial branch too powerful. The Federalists, under John Adams, expanded federal court jurisdiction in a blatant attempt to expand and pack the judiciary at the end of the Adams administration. The Democratic-Republicans, under Jefferson, repealed the law and revered to limited jurisdiction for federal courts. Federal court jurisdiction remained limited until Reconstruction.

  3. So does this mean that all we needed to do was stack one circuit court with conservative/libertarian judges and have them declare that Obama’s actions over the last 8 years caused those states ‘irreparable harm’, throw in some blather about how the court doesn’t really have the authority to override the executive and congress like this, but it is going to go ahead and do it anyway, and we’d be good?Damn, we’ve been going about this all wrong, although I suppose its good information to have going forward. Liberals will totally understand and accept this once the shoes on the other foot, right? Since they are so intellectually honest and all….

  4. Guest: I think there’s a lot to commend in your suggestion. There are approximately 700 federal district court judges. To assert that all of them are endowed with the authority to bind the executive branch up to its summit is ludicrous and a potentially potent fertilizer for anarchy.

    By reciprocal comparison, Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture could just as well claim authority over the judicial branch and thus vacate a Supreme Court decision citing its potentially malign effect on crop yields (which he wields absolute authority to regulate). I have to admit the image of watching the bat-faced Ginsburg blinking at such news uncomprehendingly has more than a slight appeal.

    No one ever seems to even conceptualize the court’s logic running in reverse, much less articulate the implications of it in any mainstream publication.

    Gator: That’s precisely what the right should have done.

    • I would just like to see this line of reasoning carried through to its logical conclusion. Couldn’t a conservative court simply outline how much it costs the people of their state to take care of all these migrants and simply say that taking them in causes heir citizens and organizations irreparable harm and end this importation wholesale? The standard they are applying has a hole in it wide enough to drive a truck through. The EXACT same reasoning can be used the other direction.

      I guess the point I am trying to make is that this means these judges now have more power over everything than any other body. Why even have an election if some unelected liberal lawyer wearing a robe can decide the direction the country takes?

  5. Great blog man. It’s quite clear that the constitution was good but not close enough to perfect.
    Unfortunately there’s no new land on planet earth to try again with an even better constitution.
    Maybe colonization of Mars will be the new USA…

  6. Federal judges can be impeached and removed from the bench.

    Conveniently, the Republicans control the House and Senate, at least in theory.

  7. Judge Wise Lat (haha) and the other globalists always line up and vote their allegiance. The conservative appointees are vastly less predictable. You never know which one will provide the inevitable swing vote on an important decision. Indeed when one man, elected and accountable, is rendered powerless by a few judges the “constitutional crisis…[is] long overdue”
    I don’t imagine it will weigh heavily on the conscience of the 9th Circuit judges if someone is injured by a refugee (as some have suggested)
    Consequences will have to be a little more personal to register with this group.

  8. Well, it looks like the battle is over. Trump lost, the courts remain our tyrants, and the only thing left to do now is the final subjugation and extermination of us “privileged” whites.

    Damn, I had high hopes for Trump, too. Looks like he has all the fortitude and fighting spirit of a boiled noodle.

  9. “Judges” especially jewish ones, are “worshipped” in popular culture:
    mostly TV.

    JEW Judge Judy, JEW Judge Rinder ( her homosexual Yiddish-speaking Brit equivalent) JEW Simon Cowell, JEW Sharon Osborne, JEW Howard Stern, JEW Howie Mandell, JEW (QUEER) Brian Friedman, JEW Paula Abdul, JEW Jerry Springer, etc etc etc

    After all, how on Earth is a goy to know if he is of any worth unless a JEW behind a desk decrees it ???

  10. Pingback: IT’S WELL PAST TIME the term kritarchy percolated into the public consciousness. It means rule by judges, and bears a lineage descending from ancient Israel. – aladdinsmiraclelamp

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s