Which writer argues that the federal judiciary would be dangerously independent?

• A. Federalist 47
• B. Brutus 3
• C. Article III of Constitution
• D. Federalist 39

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is the worry that the federal judiciary could become insulated from the people and their control. Brutus argues this most bluntly: by granting federal judges lifetime tenure, the Constitution would place the judiciary beyond ordinary political pressures. With judges who cannot be easily removed, the courts could interpret laws and the Constitution in ways that overrule legislative acts and even state laws, gradually shaping policy in favor of the judiciary’s own power. That level of independence, Brutus fears, would place the judiciary above the other branches and the people, risking tyranny of the courts.

In contrast, the other writings and provisions respond to checks and balances and define the judiciary’s role without centering the danger of unchecked independence in the same way. The Federalist pieces defend a balanced system where independence is coupled with accountability and controls, while Article III lays out the judiciary’s structure and powers without making the separatist risk the main point.