I understand it very well. I'm wondering if Fiorina does.
And do you really believe any president would refuse to fill open judicial vacancies, knowing that if he/she doesn't do so, the next president will - and could be someone of the opposite party?
Correct me if I'm wrong but did not Fiorina say that she would not replace a single retiring federal worker? Are not judges federal workers? They may be presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, but they are still federal employees and, I assumed, subject to the same promise. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that she balks at that and keeps appointing judges, what about federal prosecutors? U.S. Attorneys? If you keep your bench stocked with judges but reduce those who bring the cases before you by a significant amount, and let those who support the courts administratively dwindle away, then how does your judiciary continue to function?
Judges don't work for the executive branch. You are working this point hard, but it doesn't work for you. You are really stretching, perhaps because you don't like Carly. If her idea a total solution? Of course not. Can it be applied as a blanket solution in every case? Of course not. Is it a starting point? Of course! At least she is suggesting ideas on what she could do within the bounds of the law, the Constitution and political reality to actually start reversing the growth of government. If you have better ideas, why not post them?