I focused on the executive branch here, but it doesn't negate the danger out any one branch monopolizing power. Ultimately the legislature, being made of the most people, is the least dangerous, but I don't think it's a good idea to tilt the balance of power in any direction. Personally I believe in balancing the funding between branches.
Though to more directly answer your question, possibly it could be. If the reaction to an overly funded judicial branch is to better fund the executive then you run the chance of going overboard and creating that dictatorial situation. If you're balancing things by funding an underfunded executive branch then you're sliding towards that "dictatorship" end of the spectrum, but ideally you stop somewhere in the center avoiding any risk of an actual dictatorship.
I would agree because 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' and we allow goverment to become larger with tax payer money (which is kind of like poking a sleeping bear with a stick)
However we must deal with things the way that they are, and the way things have been 'manulipulated' is that some bad chacters are using corrupt judicial system employees as sheilds..so its sort of like trying to disarrm a timebomb. So I think in some cases giving 1 branch a large budget can help cancel out another out of control branch...but that is just my thoughts.
But I think that about 95% (maby 99%) of the time I would agree with the article that you first wrote
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit