Is political action controlled by a "government of judges"?

[Julie4]

I'm not sure that this word " government of judges " has a real meaning for an Anglo-Saxon audience like on this site, which might make my question difficult to understand.

I read in an article that the most appropriate word for an Anglo-Saxon audience would be "government by the judiciary". I don't know if it's true.

If my question is too incomprehensible I will delete it.

[RyanEC]

I am guessing you mean the same thing as what we call “legislating from the bench” in America; where courts and judges can make something a law or strike down a law through a court case.
I think this is a significant problem since judges at the highest lever are not voted on.

[Sixgunsound]

What it sounds like you’re describing is an escalating tiered court system that is allowed to decide whether laws made by elected officials are valid or not. Logically then, the judiciary is the only branch of government that actually matters, because it can veto or overturn policy or laws made by the executive, or the Congress in the United States.

[AngryCarl]

It's a natural outcome of paralysis in the elected government.

[KostasKouvalis]

Yeah, I have no clue what you're talking about 😂

[Julie4]

🤣🤣

[bean2k21]

Sho' is a lot of politicians own tobacco fields back in the day. And they had no shortage of criminals to work in them.

[CaptainSmartass]

Well, I do believe that politicians should end up in front of a judge, but not necessarily in this way.

Simples...

[OddBeMe]

The US has a strong judiciary that is very political. That’s the constitution of checks and balances.

[Dargil]

No by the US Constitution.

[Jennz6]

I am not sure about it

[Anonymous]

It’s controlled by who controls the judges…

[pizzalovershouse]

Not in all countries

[legalboxers]

if there is corruption then yes