Customer Reviews

The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

This book is an excellent summary and analysis of our current constitutional predicament. Even if Mrs. Schlafly's legal and historical arguments are incorrect--and I don't believe they are--it is at least a problem that the behavior of the courts in recent decades has become such a source of division. We need a way out of this mess, and we won't find it by being complacent.

The previous review speaks for itself. For every person on the Right who is annoyed by challenges to his unexamined opinions, there is at least one such person on the Left.

Is it really so obvious, for instance, that there is no problem with the Supreme Court seeking "precedents" for its opinions in the legislation and case law of foreign countries? Is it irrational to wonder whether one judge should be permitted to nullify laws passed by a majority of citizens--based on his divination of the "motives" behind the law? Are we so sure that this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind--or that our judgment is better than theirs?

Phyllis Schlafly masterfully presents the core problem in American government today: there are no checks and balances when it comes to judicial power.

As an attorney I know from experience that there is one rule that trumps all other rules: judges do as they please. We have a Nevada supreme court which ruled that an amendment to the Nevada constitution was, effectively, unconstitutional and therefore refused to enforce it.

There is no doubt that judges see their branch of government as superior in authority to the legislative and executive - combined. They do not recognize the other two branches of government as legitimate checks and balances to their own power.

The Supremacists is a compelling review of the problem we face today, Phyllis Schlafly sets forth some useful ideas to reverse our slide into judicial tyranny. Her only fault is that she does not go far enough.

Great book. This is the only book that correctly identifies judicial supremacy as the core of the problem with the courts, and gives practical suggestions on what to do about it. For example, we don't need a constitutional amendment to stop same-sex marriage, because Congress can just withdraw court jurisdiction to DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act). This book clearly proves that the courts do not need to be making law in the way that they do. It all started in the Warren Court about 50 years, and the bad, activist, anti-democratic decisions have been the result of erroneous thinking about the constitutional role of the courts.

Well, this is the best time to review this book as it's now clear that, at least for the next four years, we will have fewer "supremacists", or judicial lawmakers, writing our laws rather than interpreting them. Only through the courts has the left been able to succeed in pushing through its cultural agenda. Schlafly reviews a suprising number of cases in this book to illustrate the way in which judges have been become more powerful forgers of government than the legistlators that we actually elect. Her case is strong and the book is very readable; however, I would recommend waiting until the paperback comes out as the book is far too short to be worth full price. It was a helpful primer though for those of us with only fading memories of Marbury v. Madison and ex parte McCardle.

One can hardly think of a better author to take on the judicial activists. Phyllis Schlafly has been a dogged defender of freedom, and the matriarch of pro-family activism for four decades now. Both as a mother and a lawyer, she is well qualified to speak on how the tyranny of the courts is stamping out our freedoms and laying siege to our families.

Her thesis is simple. For the past fifty years liberal judges have moved beyond the strict interpretation of law to the creation of law. They have become legislators, and have sought to impose their leftist bias on the rest of the community. The rule of law has thus been replaced by the rule of judges: judges who are unelected and unaccountable, foisting their vision of the good society on a hapless citizenry.

Instead of viewing the US Constitution as a document that meant certain things by its authors, the activists speak of a "living and evolving Constitution" that can be taken to mean different things at different times. The original intent of the framers of the Constitution is jettisoned and trendy interpretations are read into the documents. The judges in fact are writing their own biased opinions into the law.

But the American system of government was meant to include a clear separation of powers. In addition to the judiciary, there was the legislative and the executive wings of government. Not only was the judiciary not meant to be in the business of creating laws, but it was also designed to be the least powerful of the three branches of government. Schlafly shows that in many ways it now has become the most powerful.

Indeed, this book shows that our judges have imposed taxes, dismantled laws that protect internal security, rewritten laws on the conduct of elections, and redefined the institution of marriage, to name but a few examples of judicial activism.

Moreover, they have invented so-called rights to such things as abortion, same-sex marriage, and public funding of pornography. As Schlafly rightly notes, such social and political policies should be made by our elected representatives, and not by our unelected judges.

Schlafly documents how this momentous change to our governance has come about. She notes that the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 really started the ball rolling on judicial tyranny. The Supreme Court made this pro-slavery decision by striking down a Federal law which forbade slavery in certain parts of America. Abraham Lincoln, the champion of emancipation, was appalled at the decision, and the attempt by the Court to make public policy.

Nearly one hundred years went by before a new bout of judicial activism erupted, this time under the Warren Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren wasted no time in asserting judicial supremacy, with a number of established laws overturned, and controversial social upheaval initiated, as in his challenges to school prayer and obscenity laws. The trends started by Warren have pretty much continued unabated during the past five decades.

Schlafly charts this half century of activism, with detailed chapters on such things as the courts' promotion of feminism, pornography, and its all-out assault on the institution of marriage. Concerning the latter, this book makes clear that both liberal judges and homosexual activists know that their agenda will never be implemented by the ballot box. The will of the people must be side-stepped by the use of judicial activism. Thus the war against marriage that we are now embroiled in.

In addition to various state judiciaries rejecting the will of the people on the marriage debate, the federal courts as well have waded into these debates. Justice Scalia has bemoaned the activism of his colleagues, saying they are making the Constitution and the nation unrecognisable.

Schlafy reminds us that homosexuals can marry just as anyone else can, but on the same terms. Everyone is equally banned from marriage because of certain age, relationship, and sex requirements. The truth is, most homosexuals do not want marriage. What they do want is full public acceptance and approval, and they are using the activist courts to achieve their aims.

Schlafy concludes this volume by offering some proposals to stop the judicial supremacists. These include allowing Congress to take its impeachment powers seriously, and to work to restore the balance of powers with its system of checks and balances. Above all, ordinary citizens must take an interest in the courts and court decision, becoming informed on how America was meant to be governed. They must become involved, and raise their voices about these unwelcome trends.

And this book serves as an important rallying cry to that end. In order for "we the people" to be truly sovereign, the warnings of this book need to be widely declared and heeded.

I totally agree with Phyllis Schafly and I gained better insight into the whole judicial process and the long-term disastrous social effects of judical inperialism by those who make up law and precedent from their own minds and ambiguous feeling.
Phyllis takes you through watershed judical pronouncements by
subject and summarizes simialr cases to give the reader a focused understanding of rulings by subject. If you are in a hurry and are looking for a quick, but telling understanding in diverse areas of law--this book is helpful and a good primer for those who want to an introduction to the originalist or texualist view point of judical interpretation.

I bought the book because I am doing research on abortion and I needed a practical grasp of the underlying social and political climate that coalested into the convuluded judical reasonings behind that fateful Roe decision. I feel that this book, rounded out my view and I gained a fuller understanding of the interrelated issues.

Men In Black by Mark Levin gave a chronoloical approach to the devolution of the renegage court--where Pat Robertson's Courting Disaster gave the religious and social context of the constitution's framers to give tremendous depth of understanding into the thinking and background of that brilliant God-given documentation. His book peers into the soul of the constitutional writers and I gained a new revelation and appreciation of the indispensibility of the Christian faith as absolutely critical to the success of our nation.

This book rounded out my understanding, reinforced introductory legal concepts so I was better able to grasp the guiding principles and reasonings of the clandestine supreme court.

The author is one of the most potent grassroots politicial activists in the country over the last generation, so she does generate controversy, and her effectiveness inflames the passions of her opponents which probably accounts for most of the one-star ratings.

Okay. But what about the actual merits of the book? The author is also an attorney by training. She has researched the subject well and supports the premise with a clear and cogent survey of the history of judicial activisim and the mischief it has caused. For those who have had enough of judges overreaching the duties of their office and snatching legislative powers away from congress and state assemblies, this book is a refreshingly candid look at what's wrong, how we got into this mess, and constitutional remedies to get back on track. I always appreciate the glorious combination of brevity and clarity, and this book does not disappoint.

Many people are unaware that the constitution grants Congress the power to legislate exceptions to the court's jurisdiction (i.e. tell federal courts what they can and cannot hear). Mrs. Schlafly's development of this idea is worth the price of the book alone.

This book is another in a long line of evidence that many of our jurists are going stark raving mad. Except for the three bad liberal reviews ahead of this one( one of which wrote a five star review for that old cuss, Leo Buscalia's latest "advise to the lovelorn and those that will never find love because they are crazy"...seriously, does anyone still read Leo?), the other reviewers seem to realize this. The question is what can be done and I agree with the author... it's tough particularily when congress and the Prez don't seem to want to do anything about these judicial zanies... Remember that California got rid of Rose Bird and two other state supremes for their refusal to apply the death penalty, actually flaunting doing their duty in front of the people for ten years, daring them to do anything about it...the people did, and Rose was out and even then she never "got it". Get this book...you need it to fight the liberal virus of "gonna get ya". One way or the other, they mean it.

In addition to being one of the most effective grass-roots leaders in America (she is credited for defeating the ERA among other things,) Mrs. Schlafly is also a briliant scholar with several advanced degrees, including a law degree. However, this book is easily readable to the average person. It is factual, well argued, and concise. She diagnoses the problem of judicial tyrrany, and offers practical, well needed solutions.

The book has twelve chapters. Three chapters review how judicial supremacy got started, and how it grew. Eight other chapters examine eight important political issues, and how judges have illigitimately inserted their own policy preferences for the clear words of the Constitution. She shows how judges have acted to censor religious expression, undermine U.S. sovereignty, redefine marriage, foster feminism, promote pornography, interfere with elections, and even levy taxes (a chapter is devoted to each of these topics).

The best part of the book though, is the last chapter, entitled, "How to Stop the Judicial Supremacists." This chapter alone is well worth the cost of the book. She gives 10 action steps that people can take to restore the Constitutional Republic,and curtail judges. One of the most important actions she recommends (and others are echoing this plea,) is that Congress must limit the jurisdiction of courts, which it has full power to do, under the Constitution. Another well needed remedy would be for Congress to stop funding the ACLU, and its legal war on American values. I personally was shocked to find out that my tax dollars go to fund this dangerous group of bullies.

We as citizens cannot simply continue to think that the solution to judicial tyrrany lies in getting the "right" people appointed to the courts. That notion used to be applied to kings. "If we can only get a good king, monarchy should be supported," it used to be argued. No. The genius of the Founding Fathers was that they invented a way to peaceably get rid of bad leaders. However, we have now become brainwashed into thinking we must accept Supreme Court decisions as royal edicts with no way to veto them or remove justices from their lifetime appointments. Phyllis Schlafly points out the already available means by which the out-of-control judiciary can and should be made more accountable. I hope this book inspires average citizens to become more active and restore government by the people.

With the looming battle over the Supreme Court confirmation, I find Phyllis Schlafly's book The Supremacists a useful tool to educate readers about the growing problem of judicial activism.

Mrs. Schlafly correctly sums up the ideology of these "legislators in black robes" by quoting Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan:"The Supreme Court has been, and still is, called upon to solve many of the most fundamental issues confronting our democracy, including many upon which our society, consciously or unconsciously, is most deeply divided, and that arouse the deepest emotions. Their resolution, one way or another, often rewrites our future history."

Mrs. Schlafly is exactly right in calling this arrogance. Schlafly illustrates that our form of government is established on a genius system of checks and balances. This means that, despite what Judge Brennan thought, no single branch of our government "can solve many of the most fundamental issues". Each branch of our government must keep the other in line.
Mrs Schlafly also quotes Brennan in saying that "evolution of constitutional law has been, in fact, a moving consensus." In saying this Brennan is trying to tell us that our Constitution changes with the culture and times. That doctrine of course defeats the very reason for having a Constitution. Schlafly makes it clear that these judges on the Supreme Court, lower federal courts, and state courts have as much duty to follow the Constitution as those elected by the people.

Schlafly finishes her book by offering solutions to remedy judicial tyranny. She emphasizes the need for Congress to reign in the judicial "supremacist".

I highly recommend this book to those who are concerned about this growing problem