Does the phrase “separation of powers” ring a bell for anyone? Remember your high school civics classes? Checking Wikipedia for a quick definition, I find the following:
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating from the United States Constitution, according to which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
In particular, notice the part about avoiding abuses of power.
Enter Steve Engler. According to some recent reporting he’s all het up about a state redistricting map drawn by the Appellate Apportionment Commission. The Commission, a panel of six appeals court judges, was appointed as the last resort after a bipartisan panel appointed by the governor was unable to do the job. Engler doesn’t like the final product, and, it seems, he’s out for retribution. An AP article quotes him saying:
If we have appellate judges that have such a casual disregard for the election process, we need to change the way that judges are selected.
Don’t we have separation of powers to avoid situations like this – where politicians try to force their will on the judiciary and begin the witch hunt when the fail to do so?