Answer bossy judges.(Scan: Short news and commentary)(federal judicial power)

Judicial overreach now extends to all areas of American society, from the right to own property to the definition of marriage, from the freedom to practice religion in public to the ability to run a competitive business.

Federal judges have even granted themselves the authority to raise taxes (see, e.g., "Runaway Judge," TAE May/ June 1995), though U.S. and state constitutions give this power only to legislative branches, not to unelected officials appointed for lifetime tenure. So much for "No Taxation Without Representation!"

More recently, big business teamed up with big government and an expansive Supreme Court to give local jurisdictions power to seize private residential property (through "eminent domain") in order to hand it over to developers for upscale projects. Never mind the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that property may be taken only for public use; the Court has now broadened that definition to include private development that makes millions for select investors and government tax coffers.

Courts have also assumed vast regulatory authority. In 2005, a judge encouraged people to sue McDonald's for enabling obesity among its patrons. This November, judges in Washington state established what amounts to a new category of parenthood by declaring a lesbian who lacks either biological or adoptive links to a child to be the legal co-parent.

Those of us who object to judicial imperialism of this sort recently got chastened by American Bar Association president Michael Greco, who warned last October that "those who would tear down our courts for short-term political or other gain threaten the very fabric of our republic." I surely agree that short-term political gain is not a good basis for jurisprudence. But resisting the judicial branch's power grab is not about transient political advantage; it grows out of deep concern for the long-term health of our country and worry that ...