Book Description
For the first time, a sitting judge blows the whistle on America’s out-of-control courts.
A judge for more than twenty years, Robert Dierker has enjoyed a distinguished legal career. But now that career may be on the line. Why? Because he is breaking the code of silence that has long kept judges from speaking out to present a withering account of how radical liberals run roughshod over the Constitution, waging war on the laws of nature, the laws of reason, and the law of God.
Even those outraged by America’s courts will be shocked by Judge Dierker’s story of activist judges, deep-pocketed special interest groups, pandering politicians, and others who claim to stand for tolerance, equal rights, and social justice, but actually stand for something quite different—something closer to totalitarianism.
Citing not only Judge Dierker’s own experiences but dozens of other recent court cases,
The Tyranny of Tolerance shows how the courts enable left-wing activists to ram their dangerous agenda down the throats of the American people. Consider:
• Why do the courts claim the power to tax us?
• Why is a Christian fired when he voices opposition to his employer’s favoring homosexuals?
• Why are airline pilots sued and sent to “diversity training” for recommending that suspicious-looking people of Middle Eastern appearance be kept off planes?
• Why does a judge who defends a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lose his job?
• Why are speech codes imposed on employers, university students, lawyers (and judges!), while “artistic” indecency is protected from even the mildest regulation?
• Why are peaceful abortion protesters thrown in jail, their right to free speech crushed?
• Why are white and Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities in the name of “diversity”?
• Why is an enemy fighter captured in Afghanistan granted access to U.S. federal courts, overturning judicial precedent safeguarding the president’s wartime powers—to say nothing of common sense?
With this passionate insider’s account, Judge Dierker reminds Americans what’s at stake in the battle for the courts: the Constitution, the success of the war on terrorism, the freedom to worship God, the ability to keep our families safe, the institution of marriage, and much more.
Fortunately, Judge Dierker shows how we can defeat the radical liberals’ tyranny of tolerance. By wresting back control of the courts and restoring the legal, moral, and religious principles embedded in the Constitution, we can ultimately reclaim the republic the Founders bequeathed to us.
Customer Reviews:
Don't waste your money.......2007-08-18
This makes Levin's Men in Black look like a scholarly book. Tyranny of Tolerance makes no attempt at considering the complexities of some of the questions that the author discusses. In fact, loaded with inconsistencies and incoherence, it is at best a rant. A simple example should suffice: he insists that judges should follow the intent of the Constitution and its plain meaning. If that is the case, he should argue that the narrow purpose of the 14th amendment was not to announce a broad principle of equal treatment, but a specific protection for black Americans. The Congress that wrote the amendment enacted affirmative action laws favoring blacks. Instead, like the judges he criticizes, Dieker "morphs" the amendment into a rule that he favors. Readers serious about understanding judging and the Supreme Court ought to read Kermit Roosevelt's book about Judicial Activism.
A Needle of Truth out of the Haystack of Judicial Deception .......2007-05-27
Political Correctness is a passive aggressive form of tyranny but one of the most dangerous tyrannies nonetheless. It is passive because it is subtle and has the power to make its victims feel guilty for opposing it and thus easier to subjugate. It is dangerous because by the time we get fed up with it and decide to stand up to it most of the damage has already been done.
The Judicial code of silence is just such an example of this damage. How can sitting judges, with more job security than most Americans can dream of, be bludgeoned into silence so easily? Nothing more perfectly demonstrates the tyranny of political correctness, masquerading as "tolerance."
Judge Dierker as written a good book. He is bold and courageous for doing it and will no doubt suffer career ostracism, if not death threats, for it. He reminds me of the scientists who break their own code of silence to speak out on the hoax of anthropogenic global warming. The machinations of both of these elements of political correctness have the goal of transferring more control over the personal lives and finances of ordinary Americans to a government in the hands of the enemies of truth, justice and the oh-so-politically incorrect "American way."
If you are one of those who is fed up with being pushed around and dictated to by mad power hungry moonbats this book is for you. It affirms that you are not alone.
The Code Exposed.......2007-05-27
"Tolerance" is one of those words that have a positive connotation so it is no surprise that the Democratic Party has co-opted it as one of its watchwords. However, in THE TYRANNY OF TOLERANCE, judge Robert Dierker insists that the drive to achieve tolerance has reached such a manic level that the word now implies tolerance for some is a zero sum game that inevitably results in intolerance for others. Such a wish to force tolerance on those whom the tolerant deem intolerant is now reflective in a broad swath that cuts across all sectors of America. Those who see themselves as dispensers of tolerance call themselves liberals, but Dierker more correctly terms illiberal liberals. As a circuit judge of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of Missouri, Dierker, over a twenty year career on the bench has seen it all, and during those two decades has seen a negative transformation in the basic legal framework of his court and by extension, the United States. At the core of this metamorphosis is the evolving view held by the Left of the Constitution. Originally, seen as the cornerstone of our republic, it has slowly been eroded away from meaning what it says to what a leftist judiciary says it means. Now, the illiberal liberals use it to force an agenda on the very fabric of our society, one that includes filing "lawsuits to kick the Boy Scouts out of public parks, to get sodomy into a constitutional right, to throw peaceful abortion protestors in jail, to allow abortionists to pull babies three-quarters out of the way of the womb and kill them, to crush pro-lifers' rights of speech and assembly, to nullify the reproductive rights and parental rights of men, to bankrupt the firearms industry as a means of disarming a free people, to impose racial quotas on employment, and to eliminate God from the Pledge of Allegiance." (Page 3)
It is pretty clear that Dierker is a conservative judge who takes a view of society that includes a refusal to expect a guaranteed level playing field of wealth and justice. The Left, in his view, wishes a society that is based on a Marxist redistribution of wealth and a utopian guarantee of justice for all to be achieved by legislative fiat. Historically, whenever any society is instituted under Marxist rules of wealth redistribution and socialist guarantees of employment and institutionalized multiculturalism, the result has inevitably been economic collapse as with the Soviet Union or social dysfunction as with most of multicultural Western Europe. These calamities Dierker is determined to avoid. In an overly brief coda, he notes how a concerned citizenry can reverse this decades long slide toward collapse and dysfunction. He writes that voters can demand judges who will decide issues based on what the Constitution says, and not on what agenda they would prefer it contain. Congress must be persuaded to curtail runaway judges by explicitly abolishing corrosive and divisive policies like affirmative action. And finally, Presidents must be chosen at least partly on their willingness to defy power-hungry supreme courts as Lincoln did when he authorized suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland in 1863. Dierker exhorts us to realize that it is not too late to wish to be intolerant of the perverted brand of tolerance now bandied about by the illiberal liberals.
Book review.......2007-04-10
This book is very importent to any who are concerned about the current fact the liberal judiciay is out of control and taking us down the road to complete judicial autocracy.
Wow! The Truth about the Legal Thought Police Pogrom.......2007-03-20
WOW!! This Book is a Rare Find - and a Very Important One.
Using Clear and Unambiguous language to explain in straightforward terms the current state of Constitutional Law and the Judiciary in modern Weimar Amerika - Judge Dierker has both produced a Masterwork of American Letters, and Turned Over the Rock on the Ugly underside to the attack on our Country by Radicals within the alleged `Legal Profession' using the pretext of `Tolerance' as a platform for a Draconian Political Thought Policing attack on Society and the Constitution.
For those thinking of attending Law School (or already there) - this book is Vital, particularly as it covers Basic Issues that are Now Censored by Law Schools and Constitutional Law Texts (like Justice Scalia's Dissent in Romer v. Evans - where he discussed Homosex Bias in Legal Education - and was Censored from the Cohen & Varat Text Book for it) - and does so in a refreshingly candid manner.
In fact, this book is so complete and yet concise, that if one supplements this book with the Cases it Cites (available on the Net for free) - it would serve as a Far Better Constitutional Law Text than most of those on the market. I say this as a Constitutional Law Scholar / First Amendment advocate who graduated with Distinction from the McGeorge Law School - and was threatened with extreme physical violence by a Professor (Myers) while a student in retaliation for daring to support Justice Scalia's (censored - but not forgotten) dissents in class.
For those who are Not Lawyers - Read This Book!! In barely 200 Pages Judge Dierker lays out the Major Cases and Players and Scams that are the stock in trade of the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex Attack on Society. He does so in an easily understandable and lucid manner, that allows Citizens (and not just the self anointed `legal elite') to understand what is really going on, and how the scam is being run. For many the legal system and Supreme Court is a mystery beyond comprehension - but in the Tyranny of Tolerance the system is dissected in a manner understandable by all.
This Book truly lays bare the inner workings of the Legal System - and Identifies the Strategies and Tactics that have been used to turn it in to the Enemy of the People, and a tool for the self anointed power elites to enforce their Pander or Perish agenda - BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) through the Tyranny of the `Tolerance' police.
One of the BEST READS I have Ever Found - Worth the Time for Any Citizen. 5 Stars!
Book Description
Chief Justice Roy Moore believes the state must acknowledge the moral principles on which America was founded and that it is not illegal to do so. While the separation of church and state may be a credible and legitimate tenet, it has been largely misconstrued and abused during the last forty years.
Moore was sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. His critics, both within conservative circles and without, have maintained that he violated the law by disobeying the order of a federal judge to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments. But Moore brilliantly argues that those who have ordered him to violate his oath have, in fact, broken the law.
So Help Me God will articulate why he believes elected and appointed government officials have the right and the obligation to acknowledge God as the foundation of American government and jurisprudence.
Customer Reviews:
Perhaps past the point of no return, but a timely book........2007-04-03
To those who believe in Jesus and familar with the history of our America will understand this book.
To those who do not believe in Jesus and care little about our nation's history will hate this book, just as Jesus was hated.
America has become pluralistic. A nation of many gods and idolotry. We worship anything and everything but the one and only God of Abraham, the Alpha and Omega, the great I am and Lord of the universe. We refuse to worship God Almighty because of pride and fear of rules. The liberal mindset of America today has violated the 2nd commandment -- thou shall not have make a graven image (idolotry). We have made a god to suit ourself, created our own rules and removed the once understood 10 commandments. Then we wonder why our country has so many problems with crime and immorality. We have forgot from where we came.
[...] Where will you go when you die? Are you Good enough to go to heaven?
crystal clear..........2007-01-03
Thank you, Judge Moore for your uncompromising stand in regard to following the Constitution, and the rule of law. It's so easy these days to compromise, and take the easy path. It's refreshing to see a man with backbone and courage, who counts the cost, and still does the right thing! You present your case explaining the foundations of the Constitution and rule of law with crystal clarity. You're truly an inspiration. In the ages to come, we will find Judge Moore hanging out with Jefferson, Washington, Adams...and the rest of our great nation's founders.
The State is the Church for Secular Humanist Liberals.......2006-11-08
In Alabama Judge Moore was not allowed to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God and His ten commandments as being the foundation for our laws, something that is easily demonstrable and clearly our heritage. Judge Moore simply exposed the hypocrisy of a judicial system that acknowledges the Judeo-Christian God by opening in prayer and swearing oaths on a Bible, but prohibits acknowledging God in our historical foundation for law as he did. Judge Moore further demonstrated their logically fallacious reasoning in that they would not allow him to display the commandments, citing the establishment clause, but they refused to define the key word "religion" in this clause. So in effect, they decided that he violated a clause that they were unwilling to define. In doing so Judge Thompson actually stated that he found what Judge Moore did "religiously offensive." How ironic considering Thompson would not even define the word.
Simply put, every law and liberty upon which this country was founded is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. The secular humanist liberal progressives do not want the American public to recognize that. They point to a few secular oriented statements, but fail to point out that the great preponderance of the evidence points toward biblical foundations for our laws and liberties. Facts like, 1/3 of the quotes in the books and papers written by founding fathers are Bible verses, that 52 of the 55 were regular in church attendance, and that the prolific use of references to God in official documents points to the fact that their view of the establishment clause was far different than the secularist of today that wishes to ban all such reference. Even the Declaration of Independence that established our liberty to be an independent nation states that our rights come from the Creator and because of that they are unalienable (absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation). This knowledge interferes with the humanist agenda to change laws and liberties as we humans progress to a so-called higher form of liberal society by casting off the shackles of these Creator endowed rights. But of course this is anarchy, for there are no humanistic standards for right and wrong that can be agreed upon by millions of discordant people each serving their own self-interest. Outside of the words of a revelatory God such as we find in the Bible nothing can be said to be inherently right or wrong. Furthermore, concepts like separation of church and state, freedom of speech, rule of law, juvenile restrictions, bearing false witness, sanctity of life, and marriage, are in and of themselves biblical concepts. They flow from and through that particular belief system.
The secular humanistic viewpoint is also hypocritical since it is itself a religious belief system. As it has been aptly said, there can be no separation of church and state for the secular humanist, for the state is their church. The establishment clause prohibits government interference with the free exercise of religion. By banning all acknowledgement of God by government officials, even when it is based on clear historical reference, the government is interfering. Even a world famous atheist that recently converted to theism because of the powerful argument to design from the plethora of discoveries in genetics and molecular cell biology says the liberal activist judges in the U.S. have interpreted the constitution the wrong way. Antony Flew said "the Supreme Court has utterly misinterpreted the clause in the Constitution about not establishing a religion: misunderstanding it as imposing a ban on all official reference to religion." Although a theist, he is only barely so. This guy hopes there is not an afterlife and does not like any organized religions (including Christianity), which makes him an especially credible witness to what is going on in this country.
The facts are clear, there is a faction that is currently trying to establish secular humanism as our national religion, and they are using state agency to do so. Will the American populace tolerate the complete secularization of society through government supported, communistic social policy dependency and its associated philosophical indoctrination into the state sponsored religion of secular humanism? Liberals don't want you to know that behind all the smoke and mirrors of political rhetoric and banter, this is the true battle raging in 21st century America.
Are our laws and liberties going to be subject to the whims of secular humanist progressives, or shall they remain in the domain of the constitution and its amendments as set forth with the original intent of the framers? We stand at a crossroads as we begin the 21st century. Is America going to become the brave new world of the liberal with all the moral norms of the jungle, or are we going to be a constitutional republic founded upon biblical principles, the same principles that made this nation great for its first 200 years. This is the generation that must choose. Read Roy's book, it is an eye opener, but don't expect those of the secular humanist persuasion to give it a good review.
Judge Moore for Supreme Court.......2005-11-08
Wow, finally the whole story. It is hard to believe that men with as much courage, backbone, and strong morality still exist in America. This, folks, is the story of a modern American HERO. Nowadays, true heroes are ignored, blacklisted, put in jail, harassed, made fun of, and purposely misunderstood. Moore is no exception, as this story points out. In the meantime, I will be helping this man become the next governor of Alabama.
The truth is told!!.......2005-09-28
If you want to know the truth of what happened during those dark days in Alabama you need to get this book!!!
Book Description
Revised, expanded paperback edition of Schlafly classic
The gravest threat to American democracy is the overweening power of judges, and the recent Supreme Court appointments showed how fierce the fight against judicial tyranny can be. Phyllis Schlafly's spine-stiffening call to arms The Supremacists prepared conservatives for the Roberts and Alito confirmation battles. Now the revised and expanded paperback edition ensures that Americans won't surrender their self-government without a fight.
The Constitution's system of checks and balances between the three branches of government has been an illusion for decades. The reality is an increasingly brazen judicial supremacy. Judges dictate fundamental social policy, impose taxes, manage schools and prisons, and orchestrate elections. In short, Americans have exchanged the rule of law for the rule of judges.
The Supremacists begins with a survey of a half-century of judicial legislation. Chapter by chapter Schlafly reveals the astonishing scope of judicial ambition. Without any constitutional mandate, judges have banned the public recognition of God, redefined marriage, undermined national sovereignty, released a flood of pornography, institutionalized feminist dogma, and handicapped law enforcement.
But Schlafly's most startling revelation is the origin of judicial supremacy. The tyranny of judges stems not from the modest claims of Marbury v. Madison but from the infamous Dred Scott decision—the most carefully concealed skeleton in the judicial supremacists' closet. In spite of everything, Schlafly concludes, the Constitution is on democracy's side. It provides all the tools necessary—if only we'll use them—to rescue America from the tyranny of judges.
Customer Reviews:
You will love it or hate it.......2007-01-31
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.
THE SUPREMACISTS:TYRANNY OF JUDGES AND HOW TO STOP IT.......2007-01-10
THIS IS ABOUT HOW THE JUDGES INCKLUDING THE SUPREME COURT WHO ARE CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND MAKING LAWS THAT ONLY CONGRESS SHOULD BE DOING. WHAT WE CAN DO TOCHANGE THINGS.
Phyllis Schlafly.......2006-08-15
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.
Valuable Primer on Judicial Activism.......2006-06-25
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.
Echo Chamber.......2006-05-14
One of a few dozen books from the right upset that the Courts are working exactly as the founding fathers intended: independant and not accountable to the political hacks who run the other two branches of government.
Book Description
This newly revised book by Mark I. Sutherland provides a ground-up education of the ongoing tyranny of judges in our nation. "Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings Of America", which is a cooperative effort by those who are daily involved in this issue, is designed to provide regular Americans with the simple truth about our limited system of government and how those limits are being violated, to the detriment of us all, and what can be done to restore our liberties, our rights and our freedoms.
Featured in this ground breaking book is the insight of Mark I. Sutherland, Dr. James Dobson, Chief Justice Roy Moore, US Attorney General Ed Meese, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Dave Meyer, Phyllis Schlafly, the Honorable Howard Phillips, Alan Sears, William Federer, Ben DuPre, Rev. Rick Scarborough, David Gibbs, Mathew Staver, Don Feder and Herb Titus. This book covers everything from problem judges, to international law, to congressional solutions, to the misunderstood concept of the 'rule of law' and is written for the everyday citizen.
Customer Reviews:
Judicial Tyranny.......2006-08-04
This is an excellent book, with lots of important information about our three branches of government and how it was originally set up to operate. Lots of great info with which to arm ourselves to urge congress to recall some of the radical judges.
A compelling exposition of judicial tyranny and viable solutions to reign in on it.......2005-10-08
In his book Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland has assembled a wonderful cast of Christian attorneys, jurists, political scientists, and clergy who offer a rather perceptive analysis of judicial tyranny and our hope and means of restraining an overactive judiciary. Contributors include James Dobson, former U.S. Attorney General Edward Meese, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, Don Feder, David Gibbs, Howard Phillips, Rev. Rick Scarborough, Phyllis Schlafly, and Herbert Titus among others. For too long, Congress has been complacent in the face of an overreaching, activist judiciary that has been out-of-step with the will of the great majority of the American people, and the judiciary has overstepped the bounds of its constitutional authority time and time again. Herein, the issue of an activist U.S. Supreme Court and federal judiciary is confronted with painstaking precision in manner intelligible to even the lay person. Meanwhile, solutions to overcome the tyranny of these black-robed deities are presented with amazing clarity. As Edmund Burke once declared, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Complacency and ignorance will only allow the judicial oligarchy to become more entrenched and continue to foist its will upon us that is so frequently out-of-touch with the sensibilities of the American people.
The framers of our Constitution hoped to establish an independent federal judiciary; however they by no means hoped to establish some new and peculiar government that might be termed an archonocracy-a national domination of judges. As John Randolph of Roanoke, in observing the activism and usurpation of power by the federal judiciary in his time quipped that "I can never forget that the Book of Judges is followed by the Book of Kings." Thomas Jefferson opined, "...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." Alexander Hamilton considered the judiciary to be the "least dangerous branch" of the federal government because it had neither the sword of the Presidency nor did it control the purse-strings like the legislative branch. In our time, the appellation of "least dangerous branch" to describe the federal judiciary seems rather far-fetched in light of twentieth-century history. While Hamilton made some compelling arguments about the virtues of an independent judiciary, he did not perceive the judicial tyranny that looms over us today. On the hand, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason were very weary of an overactive judiciary and they offered prophetic insight that has bore bitter fruit. George Mason warned that if unchecked the federal judiciary would destroy the state judiciaries, and encroach upon their jurisdictions. In his twilight years, Jefferson remarked that the "federal judiciary" was an object of "fear" declaring, "That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." As John Taylor of Caroline opined, "A jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction." The States coupled with the horizontal checks and balances within the federal government itself were intended as a bulwark against usurpation by any branch. As Madison has declared, "ambition must be made to counter ambition." Yet Congress remains complacent in moving against an overactive judiciary by any "ambition" of it's own and the States have been rendered impotent. The Executive branch generally refuses to interpose against encroachments against the Constitution by the judiciary, though it is sometimes committing its own usurpations. Alexander Hamilton reminds us that, "It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." Andrew Jackson encapsulated the power of the executive to interpose, in declaring, "The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it." Jackson, of course, had no intent of give their judgment efficacy. Interposition, of course, should be utilized to uphold the rule of law.
Some of the most powerful changes in civil society came not from the Congress but from an overactive judiciary. Justice Scalia in one of his famous dissents lamented that the Supreme Court had assumed the role of "a sort of junior-varsity Congress" in contravention of the constitutional design of the framers. While Hamilton's assertion that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" have proven erroneous in our time, in Federalist #78 Hamilton declared, "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Since FDR's court-stacking in the mid-1930s and the activist push of the Warren Court in the 1950s, American conservatives have grown steadily more concerned about a judiciary gone awry. The U.S. Supreme Court in our time has sanctioned the removal of the Ten Commandments and prayer from public places, diminished local community standards of obscenity, trampled upon the sanctity of life in legalizing abortion throughout all fifty states with Roe v. Wade in 1973, and mor recently the court has trampled property rights by sanctioning eminent domain abuse for private politically-connected interests in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Judicial fiat now trumps the rule of law, and we have supplanted the law with the rule of men. The agenda of social liberalism is foisted on society most successfully by an overactive federal judiciary. With the most absurd and twisted reasoning, the Supreme Court made a steady, unforeseen move towards the legalization of abortion, such as the case of Grizwold v. Connecticut the court discovered an unenumerated right of privacy in the "penumbras, formed by the emanations," of the Bill of Rights. Ancillary to that right of privacy was a concomitant right to infanticide. Justice Goldberg boldly state that such unenumerated rights were "rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people," to give a locus of legitimacy to the court's arbitrary whelm.
George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and John Taylor of Caroline feared that the federal judiciary would devour the jurisdiction of the states, and become activist. Nonetheless, Congress has the constitutional means to counter an overactive judiciary by impeachment and by circumscribing the jurisdiction of the federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court. Hamilton reminds us that it has been long-standing Anglo-American tradition that judges only hold their tenure in "good behavior" and this was a barrier to the "encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." Yet Impeachment is hardly even considered to reign in on judicial tyranny. Phyliss Schlafly perceptively notes, "The Founding Fathers did not write a Constitution that set up a judicial oligarchy. They gave us a government based on the Separation of Powers. The mighty power of government was divided among three branches of government, and each is supposed to restrain the others by an interlacing network of checks and balances. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution justifies judicial supremacy." Nonetheless, in our time, the design of the federal republic has unraveled, and judicial usurpation has made the assault on the Constitution all the more egregious. Justice Antonin Scalia has sardonically referred to his colleagues as "black-robed masters" who manipulate and distort the Constitution, and abysmally conflate their powers. "Within the last 20 years, we have found... the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years [and] the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years."
Judge Roy Moore makes it clear that all federal laws are not "the supreme law of the land" or by implication "constitutional law" merely because it was effectuated by a federal court ruling, but only those laws made "in pursuance thereof" to the Constitution as per Article VI. Even sitting Justice Scalia has expressed his disdain at his activist colleagues on the High Court: "So it is literally true... that the court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people... and the Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake. It's a legal document. And like all legal documents, it says some things and it doesn't say other things." There are even recent precedents that show Congress has willingness to act against the judiciary's mischief, but the hope of conservative Christian evangelicals is that the Congress would do more and abate the judiciary's raw grab for power. In 2004, both House and the Senate passed the Marriage Protection Act, which became public law, which had the effect of circumscribing the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-effectively barring those courts from hearing questions related to marriage. This was seen as a welcomed preemptive move by evangelicals to prevent a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States while usurping the authority of the States and legislatures on the matter. Liberals in a knee-jerk reaction muttered that such legislation was unconstitutional; however, the Constitution vests Congress with the authority of circumscribing the jurisdiction of the federal courts and of abolishing and reconstituting those courts in a manner it sees fit. Mark Sutherland thoughtfully notes, "Congress has the power to limit what areas the judicial branch can rule in. Under authority granted to Congress in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress can place regulations and exceptions on the judicial branch that would prohibit the courts from ruling on certain issues and in certain areas. These areas could be religious freedom, the definition of marriage, or any other area that Congress chose to declare off-limits to the courts." Moreover, at the impetus of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court possessed a much limited jurisdiction. Essentially, it was confined to cases where it exercised original jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as per Article III, Section 2, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;-to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;-to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;-to controversies between two or more states;-between a state and citizens of another state;-between citizens of different states;-between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." Essentially, as per the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary was extremely limited. For example, two citizens of the same state could not be litigants in a federal suit since diversity of citizenship is lacking, and the federal jurisdiction only extends to cases where the plaintiff and defendant parties come from different states. The federal judiciary exercised jurisdiction over disputes between the states. Essentially, there are two main sources of the cases coming before the federal courts: "federal question" jurisdiction, and "diversity" jurisdiction. Earlier in the nineteenth-century, the jurisdiction of cases properly arising within under the authority of the States was considered inviolable and there was no higher court of appeal in cases originating in a state court than the Supreme Court of the respective State. This has, of course, changed as respect for states' rights and the Tenth Amendment has been greatly diminished, but it is within the power of Congress to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary to a manner commensurate with original intent. While the judiciary has usurped the powers of Congress and the States time and time again, it is within Congress' power to reign in on an overactive judiciary while preserving the benefits of an independent judiciary. We must activate Congress and communicate to our lawmakers that the American people are tired and alarmed by a judiciary whose edicts are seldom amenable to the more conservative sobriety of the American people. If Congress does not actively impeach overactive judges that subvert the Constitution, it can greatly curtail federal court jurisdiction.
All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny. Mark Sutherland's Judicial Tyranny is destined to be a classic, and unlike similar well-written books by Mark Levin and Pat Robertson, Sutherland's book is unique: it is hard-hitting and much more multi-faceted on the issues it covers. Additionally, it represents a profound cooperative effort by a potentate of conservative luminaries from James Dobson to Roy Moore.
"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
-Alexander Hamilton
Average customer rating:
|
Judicial Tyranny Cd Audio Book (Assaulting the foundation of morality and the family.)
Dr. james Dobson
Manufacturer: focus on the Family
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Audio CD
 General
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Dobson, James
| ( D )
| Authors, A-Z
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Christianity
| Religion & Spirituality
| Books on CD
| Audiobooks
| Formats
| Books
General
| Religion & Spirituality
| Books on CD
| Audiobooks
| Formats
| Books
ASIN: B000MMAGEQ |
Product Description
Tracks 1-12: Update on the Ten Commandments
Tracks 13-21: The Battle for the 10 Commandments
Average customer rating:
|
At the Mercy of the State: A Study of Judicial Tyranny
John Hostettler
Manufacturer: Little London Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Constitutions
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Courts
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Jurisprudence
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Non-US Legal Systems
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| English Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 1872328776 |
Average customer rating:
|
The Historical Origins of Judicial Review, 1536 -1803: The Duty to Resist Tyranny (Studies in the History and Practice of Law)
David T. Ball
Manufacturer: Edwin Mellen Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| England
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Courts
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Jurisprudence
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Non-US Legal Systems
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Courts
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0773460098 |
Books:
- The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World
- The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
- Understanding Street Gangs
- Understanding the Constitution
- United Nations: The First Fifty Years
- Utopia (Penguin Classics)
- Victory on the Potomac: The Goldwater-Nichols Act Unifies the Pentagon (Texas a & M University Military History Series)
- Walden and Civil Disobedience (150th Anniversary) (Signet Classics)
- Who Will Tell The People? : The Betrayal Of American Democracy
- Why Americans Hate Politics
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Estimating in Building Construction
- The Quilter's Directory of Embellishments: 40 Step-by-Step Decorative Techniques from Applique and E
- Managing Humans Resources in the Hospitality Industry: An Experiential Approach
- Small Scale Livestock Farming: A Grass-Based Approach for Health, Sustainability, and Profit
- The History and Geography of Human Genes
- Under Water
- The Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary
- The Merck Veterinary Manual
- Regulation and Supervision of Financial Institutions in the NAFTA Countries and Beyond
- Foul Lines: A Pro Basketball Novel
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11
Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)
