Book Review by Jaclyn Thomas
In her newest book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, author Phyllis Schlafly reveals a story that should shock and appall every red-blooded American: How the Supreme Court Justices are able to establish themselves as the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution in order to amend it to make way for their own personal political agendas. This disregard for the Constitution is frightening in its own right, and the effects of their decisions which set precedents for the rest of the nation essentially granting them authority over even the legislative branch should not be tolerated. Reliance on foreign constitutions to decide US public policy, self-amending of the Constitution and interference in national elections are just a few of this Court's many transgressions.
Beginning with the banishment of the acknowledgement of God from the public sphere to their invention of the right to marriage for gay couples, Schlafly recounts tale upon chilling tale of the Justices' mad power grabs in their attempt to recreate America according to their own personal political and social agendas. Time and time again, Schlafly cites cases in which the Supreme Court has decided in favor of the minority and in so doing infringed upon the freedom of expression of religion by the majority. All of these decisions have been made citing the Establishment Clause where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The irony of this situation is best illustrated in a quote by Judge Robert Bork, an outspoken opponent of the outrageous power grabs being made by activist judges: "[the Supreme Court] has almost succeeded in establishing a new religion: secular humanism."
The Powell v. McCormack (1969) decision when Chief Justice Warren asserted that "it is the responsibility of this court to act as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution" helped to set this extremely dangerous precedent. More outrageous is the fact that on more than one occasion at least six Supreme Court justices have cited foreign documents in defense of their decisions. No matter what side of the political spectrum a person identifies themselves with, it should strike a note of discord when weighty decisions are made using the constitutions of foreign nations. This nation is governed by its own laws and Constitution and endangers its own sovereignty by acting otherwise.
Neither do the courts seem confined by following US law, given the many examples Schlafly provides of federal and state courts bending and amending the laws to fit their own personal politics. For three hundred years, Schlafly states, Massachusetts defined civil marriage as "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." How the Supreme Court judges of the fair Bay State felt they had the authority to redefine marriage in their 4 to 3 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision, which provided for the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses, should rightly be beyond most people's comprehension. In the infamous Bush-Gore election of 2000 where the Florida Supreme Court added to the chaos by suggesting, after Gore's case had lost in a trial court that there may be an alternate counting method that could possibly provide a "more favorable" outcome for him, and attempted to devise and implement one before they were stopped by a higher ranking court.
America should protect itself from corruption within its own legal system, from the danger of judicial supremacy. Thomas Jefferson most eloquently predicted this very threat; "The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped..." The best defense from this silent onslaught according to Schlafly is for the American people to appeal to Congress to assert itself to make sure that the Judicial Branch is kept in check, for as long as America continues to allow an appointed few to dictate public policy to the nation, she will continue to be plagued by the same problems she fought nearly three hundred years ago when she broke away from King George and his tyrannical rule.
Miss Thomas is a sophomore majoring in Chemical Engineering.
Beginning with the banishment of the acknowledgement of God from the public sphere to their invention of the right to marriage for gay couples, Schlafly recounts tale upon chilling tale of the Justices' mad power grabs in their attempt to recreate America according to their own personal political and social agendas. Time and time again, Schlafly cites cases in which the Supreme Court has decided in favor of the minority and in so doing infringed upon the freedom of expression of religion by the majority. All of these decisions have been made citing the Establishment Clause where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The irony of this situation is best illustrated in a quote by Judge Robert Bork, an outspoken opponent of the outrageous power grabs being made by activist judges: "[the Supreme Court] has almost succeeded in establishing a new religion: secular humanism."
The Powell v. McCormack (1969) decision when Chief Justice Warren asserted that "it is the responsibility of this court to act as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution" helped to set this extremely dangerous precedent. More outrageous is the fact that on more than one occasion at least six Supreme Court justices have cited foreign documents in defense of their decisions. No matter what side of the political spectrum a person identifies themselves with, it should strike a note of discord when weighty decisions are made using the constitutions of foreign nations. This nation is governed by its own laws and Constitution and endangers its own sovereignty by acting otherwise.
Neither do the courts seem confined by following US law, given the many examples Schlafly provides of federal and state courts bending and amending the laws to fit their own personal politics. For three hundred years, Schlafly states, Massachusetts defined civil marriage as "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." How the Supreme Court judges of the fair Bay State felt they had the authority to redefine marriage in their 4 to 3 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision, which provided for the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses, should rightly be beyond most people's comprehension. In the infamous Bush-Gore election of 2000 where the Florida Supreme Court added to the chaos by suggesting, after Gore's case had lost in a trial court that there may be an alternate counting method that could possibly provide a "more favorable" outcome for him, and attempted to devise and implement one before they were stopped by a higher ranking court.
America should protect itself from corruption within its own legal system, from the danger of judicial supremacy. Thomas Jefferson most eloquently predicted this very threat; "The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped..." The best defense from this silent onslaught according to Schlafly is for the American people to appeal to Congress to assert itself to make sure that the Judicial Branch is kept in check, for as long as America continues to allow an appointed few to dictate public policy to the nation, she will continue to be plagued by the same problems she fought nearly three hundred years ago when she broke away from King George and his tyrannical rule.
Miss Thomas is a sophomore majoring in Chemical Engineering.
"How the Supreme Court Justices are able to establish themselves as the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution in order to amend it to make way for their own personal political agendas."
They are able to do this (since they are personally given the power to interpret the Constitution, which includes the possibility of misuse), and some do abuse it.
"This disregard for the Constitution is frightening in its own right, ... should not be tolerated."
They are supposed to be able to have this power. In turn, the legislative branch approves justices, and can pass amendments to the Constitution. It is the balance of power.
"Reliance on foreign constitutions to decide US public policy,"
"self-amending of the Constitution"
This is inaccurate. The Constitution is vague, and the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret whether or not something fits the Constitution. Their interpretation may differ from yours, as it may from anyone's, but it is not self-amending the Constitution. The legal system has to be able to have standards, otherwise there is no point of law. People would simply be determining everything for themselves.
"and interference in national elections are just a few of this Court's many transgressions."
I agree that the court can't decide national elections. That is surely outside of their power.
"Beginning ... establishing a new religion: secular humanism."
Establishing religious neutrality is just that, and is clearly not establishment of a religion. It by definition is the opposite.
The cases against homosexuality are religiously based (or based on personal moral standards), so the courts have ruled correctly. (since we cannot instate religious or personal moral standards into government)
"The Powell v. McCormack (1969) decision when Chief Justice Warren asserted that "it is the responsibility of this court to act as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution" helped to set this extremely dangerous precedent."
It had already been set long before (1800s even), though that did contribute.
"More outrageous is the fact that on more than one occasion at least six Supreme Court justices have cited foreign documents in defense of their decisions."
What is the significance of this? If the thinking in a document is correct, it is correct regardless of the culture it came from.
"No matter ... of foreign nations. This nation is governed by its own laws and Constitution and endangers its own sovereignty by acting otherwise."
That is true, except I think that this point may be misleading. Are they using the constitutions as a legal justification, or citing them as valid thinking on the subject?
"Neither do the courts ... should rightly be beyond most people's comprehension."
No, because those judges are part of the legal system and part of their role includes having the power to make decisions like that. There is no constitutional document contradicting it either, so it is not an unconstitutional decision.
Systems of law are also meant to be somewhat flexible and malleable so that they can be changed and improved upon.
One of the central ideas of our law system is also indeed law determined by precedent, which is just what this is.
These people also aren't necessarily "activist judges" instating their personal beliefs just because they made a decision you disagree with.
"In the ... court."
So you are condemning the Florida court's actions? Something that could possibly produce a better outcome for Gore is not necessarily made to do that. It could be made to be more fair, and that could possibly produce a better outcome for Gore.
"America should protect itself from corruption within its own legal system, from the danger of judicial supremacy."
I agree with that, though I would say the case the author makes is not the strongest evidence of its prevalence.
Posted by: Nick Commons-Miller | August 26, 2008 at 07:59 AM