Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proclaimed that federal judges were unfit to rule on matters of national security. In scrutinizing federal judicial candidates, Gonzales said, "We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments."

Boy, I wish I could find the textual equivalent of a double-take.

Yes, folks; the US Attorney General just said that, in his opinion, the judiciary is inferior to Congress and the president. And it's a great opinion, except that it overlooks one little detail: the ... oh, what's it called? Constitution!

Did Alberto Gonzales even go to law school? Or did he "attend law school" in the same way that his boss "attended business school"? Gonzales is 100% wrong, wrong, wrong. The doctrines of both separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that each branch of government is equally powerful. The only places where you have executives that have far more authority than everyone else is in dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships (I'm looking at you, Venezuela and Bolivia).

Once again, George W. Bush -- the mouthpiece for Dick Cheney -- has asserted unilateral control of the country. And with what justification? Where is the evidence that the Constitution even considers the executive and the legislature superior in power to the judiciary? Yes, the Constitution gives the president the power to appoint judges -- with the advice and consent of the Senate -- but those judges are there for life. Furthermore, Congress can disband any federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of legislation and presidential actions.

The idea that judges don't understand "this post-9/11 world" is ridiculous on its face. Judges are there to interpret the law and strike a balance between the requirements of the law and the requirements of reality. Cheney doesn't want a judiciary; he wants a robot that automatically approves all of the administration's activities. Ostensibly, this is another "unitary executive" privilege that comes from the nebulous interpretation of the president as "commander-in-chief," as though being the head of the armed forces is a carte blanche for overriding the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were intimately aware of government power, having lived through the various Acts designed to extort taxes out of the colonies (the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, the Townsend Acts). They were terrified of government power, and in creating the Articles of Confederation, initially designed a country that was too weak. Thankfully, the Constitution of 1789 struck the balance between an overbearing federal government and a weak one.

Dick Cheney would love nothing more than to undo that. Ever since he worked for Nixon -- and even as a senator from Wyoming -- Cheney has tried his darndest to increase the power of the executive while at the same time decreasing the power of the legislature and the judiciary. Because, you see, if the legislature and the judiciary can check the executive, then the executive doesn't have unbridled power.

For engaging -- and continuing to engage -- in sheer stupidity when it comes to understanding both the law on its own and how that law should be balanced with national security, Alberto Gonzales earns the distinction of being a SEDHE Villain of the Forever.