>>92152923The thing is it's really not. It's just how things kind of drifted, it's a power that has been assumed that was never intended.
The law is pretty explicitly written. There's very little up for interpretation, or at least there wasn't, but most laws haven't been updated into modern English and while the definition and use of words has changed, these laws have stayed exactly the same on paper. Even new laws are often drafted in similarly obtuse and antiquated diction.
Judges were simply to carry out the law as it was written, not interpret it. It's why a Judge is so hard to get rid of once appointed, only the most honorable and trustworthy men were to be appointed judges, which was an optimistic assumption at best.
The judicial branch wasn't really a check or balance, it was just the executioner, pardon the pun. It assumed the role of a check on both the executive and legislative branch, but it has in reality nothing to balance out its own power, since the only route is impeachment of judges who overstep their bounds.
Which is really really hard to do, almost as hard as impeaching the president.