Judicial Tyranny by Mark Sutherland
Judicial Tyranny by Mark Sutherland educates everyday citizen on the ongoing tyranny exhibited by American judges. The book was written as a result of a joined effort of those who often take part in the issue to expose the ill practices of judges. It aimed at providing Americans with facts about their limited system of government. It shows how the limits set to govern government operations are being violated and gives suggestions of the measures that can be taken to restore Americans liberties, freedoms and rights. The book features contributions from Mark Sutherland, Chief Justice Moore, Dave Meyer, Ambassador Alan Keyes, and Rev. Rick Scarborough among others. It covers several issues ranging from the oppression by judges, to congressional solutions. It also discusses international law and the misconceived concept of the rule of law.
The book Judicial Tyranny by Mark Sutherland presents different perceptions given by political scientists, jurists, Christian attorneys and clergy. The contributors of the book give an analysis of judicial tyranny and the Americans hope in various measures that they can take in an attempt to restrain their overactive judiciary. The book is a culmination of contributions made by the former U.S. Attorney General Edward Meese, Roy Moore (former Alabama chief Justice), James Dobson, David Gibbs and Don Feder (Sutherland, 2005). Other contributors include Howard Phillips, Phillis Schlafly, and Rev. Rick Scarborough among others.
We'll write an essay from scratch according to your instructions!
The author notes that majority of American people have suffered massive acts of injustice without any substantial efforts made by the Congress to save them. The activities and conduct of the activist judiciary contravened peoples interest, as it often overstepped its constitutional mandates. The book gives a precise analysis of issues concerning the federal judiciary and the activist U.S. Supreme Court. It then presents possible measures to be taken in fighting the tyranny of black-robed deities. The suggestions made are based on understanding that complacency of the American people and their failure to act in protest against the judicial oligarchy would present a breeding ground for the unpleasant system to foist.
The book shows that American democracy is mainly threatened by the supreme power exercised by judges over social, economic and political policy (Wesley, 2013). It manages to expose the ill deeds of the courts that showed a merciless 50 year infiltration of legislative influence. The tyranny was facilitated by various actions of voters, the congressmen and the president that made no efforts to protest massive unconstitutional activities of the judiciary. For years, the system of checks and balances, between the three arms of government, as enshrined in the constitution, failed to materialize. The book gives an analysis of how judges overstepped their mandates by affecting essential social policy, overseeing prisons and schools, inflicting taxes on the people and directing the election process. It argues that Americans converted the rule of law to be the rule of judges. The authority enjoyed by judges enabled them to ban the public recognition of God, weaken law enforcement, change the meaning of marriage and authorize feminist dogma (Wesley, 2013).
Wesley (2013) states that Judicial Tyranny seeks to inform the general public about their contribution to their predicament. It mainly targets voters because of their democratic right that enables them to determine the individuals selected to serve them in the Supreme Court. It aims at providing pieces of advice to the American Public on how they can thrive in their struggle against the outwitting judiciary (Wesley, 2013). The problem of corruption that Sutherland writes about is evident in multiple levels of government. He points out that some Senate Members strive to interfere with the courts decisions, as they block faithful judges (who adhere to their constitutional obligations) from going through the elections. He portrays judges as being corrupt and selfish (Wesley, 2013).
The author argues that religion should be given time to help in determining societal morality. The marriage protection right that was passed into law by both the House and the Senate in 2004 helped in granting various religious doctrines an opportunity to define marriage. Notably, for the sake of societal morality and preservation of the dignity of human kind, Christian religion is opposed to gay marriages. Members of the gay community are seen as deviants in the society due to their endulgence in what is perceived to be unacceptable. The marriage Act was largely welcomed by evangelicals, as it was seen as a landmark ruling that would curb legalization of gay by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the author argues that it is essential to consider that a gay also has his entitlements. In as much as evangelicals would reason that they are striving to create a moral society, it is vital to note that people have their individual values. His argument is that provided the practices do not go against other peoples rights, they should be given a chance in the society. Religion should unite people rather than isolate them. Southerland maintained that it would be necessary for evangelicals to consider understanding of gays before staging their advocacy for policies against gay marriages.
Sutherland (2005) suggests that American constitution was framed with an aim of establishing an independent federal judiciary. They contrast this to the establishment of a constitution that would favor a peculiar government that would be perceived as an archonocracy. According to the author, the constitution was not structured to facilitate any form of national domination of judges.
The authors argument goes in line with Thomas Jeffersons contributions. Jefferson had stated that it is dangerous to consider judges as the final arbiters of all constitutional questions. To him, such a situation would subject Americans to the unfavorable depositism of an oligarchy. According to Alexander Hamilton, the judiciary is less dangerous, compared to the other arms of the federal government. He supports his argument with the reasoning that the judiciary lacked the sword of presidency and it did not have control over the purse-strings like the legislature. Equally, George Mason points to the danger that looms if the federal judiciary is left unchecked. He mentions that the federal judiciary can destroy the state judiciaries and that it can encroach upon their jurisdictions (Sutherland, 2005).
The states should use the horizontal checks and balances that exist within the federal government to fight against any unsurpation by any branch. Madison declares that ambitions can only be countered by ambitions. He states that the congress failed in its mandate by showing complacence, hence failing to object the overactive judiciary by a display of any form of ambition.
The author argues that some of the most significant changes realized resulted from an overactive judiciary and not the congress. The argument agrees with Hamiltons assertion that states that courts need to show the sense of the law. He says that if courts should be given time to exercise their will, as opposed to the provision of fair judgment as expected by people, they should suffer the consequence. That is, their pleasure should be substituted to that of the legislative body. An overactive federal judiciary successfully foisted social liberalism (Sutherland, 2005). The Supreme Court made consistent moves to legalize abortion by using absurd and twisted justifications.
The author notes that Thomas Jefferson, John Taylor of Caroline and George Mason expressed fear over the ability of the federal judiciary to devour the jurisdiction of the state hence becoming activist. However, they point to the power bestowed upon the congress that enables it to react to an overactive judiciary through impeachment. Hamilton reminds Americans of the Anglo-American tradition that demanded judges to retain their tenure based on their ability to display good behavior. He suggests that the tradition is helpful in preventing oppressions and encroachments of the representative body. Barnett 2recommends the tradition to be applied by any government that wishes to secure an impartial administration of laws. Hamilton makes references to the U.S Constitution and asserts that it has no section that justifies judicial supremacy. Showing support to other contributors, Hamilton states that the three branches of government should use the checks and balances to restrain each other (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014).
Southerland qualifies his assertions by not simply mentioning various areas in which he suggests that the congress should prohibit the judiciary from making judgements. He clearly identifies these areas and uses the constitution to support all his claims. The areas include religious freedom and the definition of marriage. He also mentions that the Supreme Court of U.S possessed limited jurisdiction at the impetus of the Repblic. The Courts jurisdiction was confined to specific areas, where it demonstrated original jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as stipulated in section 2 of Article III.
However, the status presented by Sutherland is subjected to criticism by some scholars who argue that Sutherlands definitions of an activist judge only include legal interpretations. In their opinion, a judge may be evaluated as an activist according to the chosen remedy even in situations when their judgments are not as activist. The critics argue that these definitions include only legal interpretation. Under normal circumstances, one is likely to term a judge as an activist judge simply because a judge has made some vital decision that is against ones wish. This reasoning presents a challenge to the whole issue of justice in judgment. It is difficult for any fair judge to make a judgment that suits the interests of conflicting parties in a case. Hence, in all cases, there will be a section of the contesting blocks that will see the judges misusing their power to oppress them.
Generally, the book Judicial Tyranny by Mark Sutherland brings together a provocative exposure of the weaknesses of the U.S. judiciary. It provides a vivid analysis given by respected scholars and renowned legal thinkers that give an informed critique of the judiciary. He uses scholars and legal thinkers who give their intelligent criticism to the judiciary and provide workable solutions to the situation that confronts Americans. The scholar clearly suggests that Americans do not have to be enslaved by the immoral and unjust tendencies of the black-robed deities. The analysis given by the scholar is based on various principles of the rule of law and the Constitutional popular rule. The application of the solutions suggested is practical, as they are founded in the U.S. Constitution. One thing that comes out clearly is that Americans need to come out in unity and fight against the demigods that soil the design of the federal republic of A.S. by making wrong decisions that go against the will of the majority. The book is a classic in design and it is multi-faceted on the issues it covers. From the analysis given about the judicial system in the U.S., it is essential for the court to be held accountable to make it responsible in declaring the true sense of law.