Customer Reviews

Courting Disaster

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Within the next four years, at least 3 (if not 4) Supreme Court Justices are expected to retire, leaving vacancies that must be filled. What type of judges should fill those spots is a question of much debate. It was with that question in mind that Pat Robertson wrote this book.

Now, first let it be said that although I am not a Christian, I am in strong agreement with a good amount of Robertson's observations. The courts have indeed usurped the power of democratic legislatures by striking down statutes (and legislating policy) on flimsy grounds. And, yes, the federal courts have certainly become more liberal in how they interpret the constitution, preferring not to look at what the document SAYS, as much as what these unelected judges think it should MEAN. Robertson speaks eruditely to both points and for that, he earns 2 stars.

Unfortunately, I cannot give him 3 more. Having a master's degree in Politcal Science from a top southern institution, I have studied quite a bit to do with law and the judiciary. As such, I found much of Robertson's history either caricaturized or simply wrong, many of his positions unviable if not contradictory, and several of his arguments unpersuasive.

Let me highlight the history. To Robertson's credit, he goes a long way in showing that many of the founders were Christian (something that is hard to deny). What Robertson does not do, though, is make a case that since they were privately christians, that God is somehow in our constitution. Pat asserts that He is, but anyone reading the constitution's text sees that He is not. There are many other historical gaffs in the book (like citing anti-federalist Patrick Henry as exemplar of the founder's intent, and deist Thomas Jefferson as an example of a good Christian.)

As far as points being either nebulous or contradictory: Robertson states over and over that he believes the constitution should be interpreted by the founder's original intent. There are several problems: first, the founders are dead and we can't ask them what they meant. Second, the only record of the constitutional convention we have is by James Madison dictated quickly and from memory. Third, is the intent to be that of the founders or the several hundred people who ratified the constitution into law via the states? I go into this because these are large problems that Robertson simply glosses over.

Robertson also tells us that we should interpret the constitution, when possible, by discerning its quite clear text. With this point I agree (and I have as much respect for Scalia's textualism as Robertson does). But with that, Robertson is quick to tell us that somehow, the 'free press' clause doesn't permit things like protection of pornography and that the 'free speech' clause doesn't protect flag burning. To quote Justice Hugo Black (himself a textualist): "I always thought that "Congress shall make no law," meant "Congress shall make no law.") Apperently, Robertson doesn't think so, even while he professes that where the text is unambiguous, we should rely solely on it.

I hate to ramble on with these points, but I do want to make clear how unsatisfactory this book is. If one does want to read a similar position articulated more intelligently, I would suggest that one reads (a) Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America,' (b) a new collection of Scalia's opinions called "Scalia Dissents," and even a book by legal progressor Robert George called "The Clash of Orthodoxies." All make the case more persuasively than Robertson's book.

Highly recommended reading. With an open mind to examine evidence one can only conclude that the courts are destroying balance of powers that was built into our govenment by the founding fathers. The use of courts to change laws makes voting of less value because courts can override the voters decisions. Every man 1 vote is powerless if 9 judges can overide it.

Pat Robertson can sometimes be a bit heavy handed when he's writing an opinion piece. I found this book to be one sided, of course, but I didn't disagree with the side he's on at all. The author gives plenty of evidence indicating the court has in the past and seems to be continuing to use nebulous grounds for many of their rulings. I encourage conservatives to read this book if for no other reason than to get a bit of history on many of the rulings that have gotten us to the point we are today.

Using both legal and religious points of view, Mr. Robertson attempts to prove that the current operation of the judicial system is dangerous to both our republican form of government and our individual freedoms.

To help strengthen his argument, the author has compiled interesting facts, quotes, case decisions, and opinions of the Court. The main points that I was able to extrapolate from the book are:

1) The original intent of the founding fathers regarding the operation of government provides an important guide for determining how the government, especially the judiciary, should act and be limited.

2) The original intent of the framers has been largely forsaken; having been replaced by court justices who have usurped the original authority granted them by the Constitution. Thus they have become "social engineers", guiding society by their opinions and own personal beliefs. This has produced a blatant disregard for will of the people, resulting in the fact that we (the people) have ceased to be our own rulers...

3) The majority of Americans disagree with many of the decisions of the Courts, especially those related to religious heritage, but feel they are powerless to do anything about it.

4) Action must be taken to restore the founders' intent, which means that the duty of creating law should be fully restored to the legislature, and that the courts should interpret said laws, not engage in the practice of legislating from the bench. Thus the reigns of the country would be put back into the hands of the people and their elected representatives.

The book felt redundant at times. On several occasions I was left with the feeling that the material moved from one idea to another without bringing closure, e.g I still had questions or wanted more detail. The logical flow of the material is a bit schizoid at times, but bearable. Despite these flaws, I still found the read thought provoking and worth the time.

Though I certainly don't agree with everything Robertson says, this book has a lot of good points. Although I disagree with him about the Brown and Miranda decisions, the historical examples given leave no doubt that America was inteneded to be a Christian nation. One other possible flaw is that Robertson tends to repeat himself a lot in the book. This book is a wake-up call for people to get involved in thier government. If the people don't stand up for themselves, who will?

Pat Robertson? Yes, I get a little uncomfortable when he squints his eyes and talks to God on the 700 Club. But, this is not just the religious right talking. This book goes back to the fundamentals of our Constitution. You will learn why the Supreme Court has failed us. This institution was designed by our founders to be the least powerful of the three branches of government but has usurped power where there was none. This book will help you understand why even the liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz believes that the Supreme Court was off base in Roe vs. Wade and why this judgement will eventually be overturned. To think that many of our laws are based on the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights - frightening! Pat Robertson doesn't just complain. He outlines a plan to correct the wrongs of the SC. The American people were smart enough to take the first step and reelect George Bush and increase the Republican majority in the Senate.

Buy this book. Help save the American way of life!

This book gets to the heart of a social problem that, unless it is changed, will have negative consequences for generations to come. It isn't news that the Supreme Court has created law where none existed before. But this book goes beyond description to explain the historical motivation behind this threat to our established "by the people, for the people" form of government.

If the tide isn't turned and laws continue to be made by judges who change their opinions on whims, we will become a nation governed by tyrants, rather than written code. The contradictions he cites by Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy clearly demonstrate how these Justices change their own minds and in the process establish "laws" that are ambiguous, unpredictable, and chaotic.

Robertson stresses the urgency of the matter. This isn't some philosohpical debate. It has direct consequences for Americans. He explains the difference in definitions over the term "constitution," explaining that when federal judges use the word they mean laws created by the judiciary, whereas the general public perceives the term to refer to the document creating the republic in the first place.

This is an action oriented book. It is an alarm to do something about the information shared. Thoroughly documented, Robertson's book traces the chronology of how the system grew so dysfunctional. The action he calls for is spelled out in the conclusion.

A book that succintly explains the rampant abuse of power orchestrated by the Supreme Court. A development facillitated by the Marshall Court's "discovery" of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison.

On Sunday morning, Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson told TV viewers nation-wide that the threat posed by liberal judges is "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." When an incredulous George Stephanopoulos asked if Robertson really believed that these judges posed "the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?," he responded, "George, I really believe that."

Pat Robertson is a nut job and anyone who doesn't realize that is either stupid or as nuts as he is.