Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Segway miniPro STEM

Customer Reviews

3.7 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on January 8, 2014
The judicial activists are taking over our country and imposing on us socialism and relativism despite the us constitution which they have sworn to uphold
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 30, 2007
I'll make no apologies for thinking highly of Phyllis Schlafly. Regardless of your politics, you have to admire the energy of someone who could obtain a law degree, raise 6 children and home school them, be highly active in the political arena, do a weekly radio program, author countless articles and books, and then deliver this book as she approached her 80th birthday. Love her or hate her, she isn't showing signs of slowing down.

And, as I said in the title, you will either love this book or hate it. In fact, as I read through the 20 existing reviews here on Amazon, there was an almost binary pattern of how people responded to this book:

Category A: Supporters of Judicial Activism.
These individuals believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to act independently of the Legislative branch in not just reviewing and applying law, but in actually enacting new laws or amending existing ones. These individuals are either ignorant of or cheerfully ignore the Constitution's separation of powers along with the only means of amending the document (Article V), preferring instead to allow a group of 9 people in robes to effectively amend the Constitution. These individuals believe, with Al Gore, that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that is to be constantly interpreted and re-interpreted in light of evolving sensibilities - not via a formal amendment process or enactment of new laws through the Legislative branch, but through the unaccountable actions of the Supreme Court. As one might guess, these individuals give the book 1 star and a scathing review.

Category B: Opponents of Judicial Activism.
These individuals believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to act independently of the Legislative branch in reviewing and applying law, and although the Court may find a law to be unconstitutional, they may not make or amend laws. These individuals believe that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted according to its plain language meaning and its original intent. These individuals also understand that there is only one manner by which the Constitution shall be amended, and it is found in Article V. As one might guess, these individuals give the book 5 stars and a glowing review.

It saddens me that instead of reading this book and judging it on its logic, its merits, and its extensive citations of court cases, the negative reviewers immediately assume the author is some type of shill for right-wing politics who selectively chose facts to support her premise. I beg to differ. She is presenting a very logical case that effectively dismantles the arguments that insist the Constitution and our history supports the notion of Judicial Activism. She shows where Judicial Activism started. She shows how and why it has grown. She shows the effects of Judicial Activism such as how the Court has made new laws, imposed taxes, and created new "rights." She clearly explains the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. She explains that Marbury vs. Madison was actually a model of judicial restraint, not judicial excess, and that it was later Courts that incorrectly applied and interpreted Marbury to eventually arrive at today's unchecked Judicial Activism. And she does this without ever once resorting to right wing politics. She merely uses the Constitution itself and a variety of Supreme Court decisions to make her case.

I, for one, believe it is an airtight case. She shows us that while some may passionately support Judicial Activism and believe that the Supreme Court's activism has actually resulted in a better country, those people cannot find that Activism power granted to the Court anywhere in the Constitution's language or intent.

In summary, take a look at categories A and B above. If you're in category A, don't bother reading this book unless you have an open mind, are willing to accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and are willing to subject your pre-conceived notions to what the Constitution actually says. If, on the other hand, you're in category B, you'll find this an excellent book that gives voice and credence to your beliefs.

As a footnote, if the topic of judicial activism and constitutional law interests you, I highly recommend the book "The Tempting of America" by Robert Bork. He does a masterful job of treating the subject and provides considerably more depth than Schlafly on the topic. Combined, the two books make an excellent primer on the topic.
22 comments| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 14, 2006
In this day and age when Truth is questioned, the source/author of a book is important indeed. If one believes that God alone is Truth, then one can read with confidence, The Supremacists. The author, P. Schlafly, is on God's Wavelength.

The Left have sought for more than 50 years to control our nation. They cannot do it by the ballot box so the revolution is therein by judges, as we have seen in the past decades but even more so in the past years (Mass), judges making rules/laws whereas they were meant only to INTERPRET the laws.

Their revolutionary rulings have and will continue to cause a great divide in the Culture War, which will define us as a nation that will live forever, or go down the sad pages of history as so many nations before us have gone, e.g., Ur. of the Chaldees, Babylonia, Persia, Alexandria, Egypt, Rome, mighty Rome, she merely disintegrated from within.

History is making its torrential mark on the world, and let us not be asleep while it rages.
11 comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 4, 2008
Schlafly has certainly done her homework, and presents a number well-researched cases with attention to specifics. Certainly her career as an attorney gives her considerable insight into the judicial process.

However, her conclusions are flawed and filtered through her own bias, almost to the point of making it seem as if she has a vendetta against jurists who don't rule according to her own narrow viewpoint when they simply rule based on precedent and the letter of the law.

Her hypocrisy is that she believes that the only right way is her way, and would take away the freedoms of others in order to impose her own rigid definitions of protected speech, separtion of religion and state, and so on.

Certainly there are problem judges in this country, and some of her examples rightly point this out. But we can all take comfort in the fact that Schlafly is not a judge, else she would be at the top of the "Supremacist" list. And the way to stop her, is to stop buying her sad, short, overpriced books. Because taking away her right to author and sell them (as she has advocated doing to others in her books, columns, and newsletters) would be hypocritical.
22 comments| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 4, 2008
Schlafly here considers these "tyrannical" judges to be "supremacists". Supremacists you ask? What kind of supremacists might she be talking about? Are they supremacists who enforce the Bill of Rights? You might know what I am talking about. These are the obviously sleazy people who allow all sorts of people to "voice their opinions" and express themselves through artistic freedom. Obviously these "supremacists" judges are rogue defenders of the Constitution and Schlafly believes that the First Amendment only applies to wholesome speech.

Now that my sarcastic portion of this review is over with, I will get to the bottom of the barrel here. Schlalfy, points out that video games are being protected by Supremacists judges who unjustly hold up the Bill of Rights in order to to allow the industry to spew violent material across the United States. Why stop at video games though Schlafly? There's a boatload of movies and violent books that you might miss, no right-wing pretend dictator like yourself would be complete without burning a book or two, right?
11 comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 9, 2007
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse