More about rule by judges and a look at juries

Is a governmental system of rule by judges (called a kritarchy) acceptable? Tolerable? Able to be endured? Better than what we are supposed to have?

In our recent commentary, we concluded that such a system would be intolerable. And what we seem to have morphed into in these Fifty States today, a form of kritarchy, is just as intolerable.

(We are not alone in this idea, though our reasons may be different than that of others. Consider what Craig Paul Roberts wrote: “The incompetent two-bit punk ideologues that Congress has appointed to the bench are hardly to be respected.  They are the enemies of justice and the American people.  They are currently busy at work overturning the presidential election.  Little wonder the ruling establishment let Trump win.  They knew that they could stop him cold with the judiciary and move him in their direction with advice that gives him ‘broader perspectives.’ “

Supporters of international progressivism (Communism) claim, “They just didn’t do it right all these other times. But now we know better and will make it work!” There is no doubt that advocates of judge-rule will make the same claim.

Some claim that a kritarchy can be just as legitimate and effective as any other form of government. (Well, governments such as “democracies” and “republics” and “monarchies.”) It all depends on how we set it up.

Absolutely! The legitimacy and effectiveness of a kritarchy depend significantly on how judges are chosen and held accountable. If judges are selected based on merit, experience, and adherence to law rather than political favoritism, the system could (theoretically) maintain impartiality and fairness. Similarly, having clear and just mechanisms for removal—such as ethical violations, corruption, or abuse of power—ensures that the judiciary remains accountable and does not become authoritarian.

In contrast, if judges are appointed arbitrarily, remain in power indefinitely, or lack oversight, kritarchy could lead to unchecked judicial dominance, where legal decisions become more about personal interpretation than justice. Some historical examples show that when judges hold too much unchecked authority, they may shape the law in ways that serve their interests rather than the broader community.

It really comes down to the structure of checks and balances. A well-designed judicial system—whether inside a kritarchy or a different form of government—needs transparency and accountability.

But that is all theoretical: high school civics and government class stuff. The reality would be just as defective, just as corrupt, just as ineffective as those other forms of government.

Do you think a judiciary-led government could function well under certain circumstances? In the Bible, Jesus’ story about the wicked judge is not just a reminder of the past, but a real and always-timely warning of what happens. The same thing can be said of the warning in Proverbs: “Put not your trust in princes.” (If you don’t think modern American judges are not ‘princes’ in their own minds and that of the law, sit in a courtroom for a few hours!)

So what about juries? One reason that English common law made juries an essential part of both criminal and civil law was the corrupt nature of judges. But juries very much have their own limitations. Deciding on a specific set of facts and the law is one thing. Making or tearing down policies and decisions that we put into the hands of government agencies? Remember how to calculate the IQ of a committee: take the IQ of the smartest person on the committee and divide it by the total number of persons in the committee.

Juries might be better, but better still is to demand self-government of ourselves and one another, and reject the power of human and mandatory government over much of anything.

READ MORE