Difference between revisions of "Judicial supremacy"
| (18 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|200px|US Supreme Court Building]] | [[Image:Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|200px|US Supreme Court Building]] | ||
| − | '''Judicial Supremacy''' is the [[liberal]], elitist view that courts are "supreme" over the other two branches of government and the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], and that courts have the authority to tell the president and Congress what they may or may not do. As explained by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] in her classic book on the topic, ''The Supremacists'' ( | + | '''Judicial Supremacy''' is the [[liberal]], elitist view that courts are "supreme" over the other two branches of government and the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], and that courts have the authority to tell the president and [[Congress]] what they may or may not do. As explained by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] in her classic book on the topic, ''The Supremacists'' (2d ed. 2006):<ref>http://www.pseagles.com/images/4/49/The_Supremacists_by_Phyllis_Schlafly.pdf</ref> |
{{cquote|Textbooks still say that we have three balanced branches of government – but textbooks are badly behind the times because one branch has assumed authority over the other two. Today, we are suffering from the oppressive rule of judicial supremacists who have replaced the rule of law with the rule of judges.}} | {{cquote|Textbooks still say that we have three balanced branches of government – but textbooks are badly behind the times because one branch has assumed authority over the other two. Today, we are suffering from the oppressive rule of judicial supremacists who have replaced the rule of law with the rule of judges.}} | ||
| − | Under judicial supremacy, the courts seize power for themselves to have the final say over issues of policy up to and including the creation of policy, instead of policy makers or even the voting public, as courts impose their own view | + | Under judicial supremacy, the courts seize power for themselves to have the final say over issues of policy up to and including the creation of policy, instead of policy makers or even the voting public, as courts impose their own view utilizing the doctrine a [[Living Constitution]].<ref name=constituting>[http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/thursday-may-30-2013-essay-74-woodrow-wilsons-what-is-progress-guest-essayist-robert-clinton/ "What is Progress?" by Woodrow Wilson – Guest Essayist: Robert Clinton, Professor and Chair Emeritus, Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale]</ref> In this light, judicial supremacy amounts to grabbing power by one branch of government to positively create law. |
| − | Under judicial supremacy, the branches of government are not co-equal. Instead, under judicial supremacy, courts are above checks and balances by other branches of government. This subverts the Constitutional [[Separation of Powers]] that exists to prevent the rise of tyrannical government. Numerous American statesmen have rejected judicial supremacy, including Presidents [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Andrew Jackson]], [[Abraham Lincoln]], and [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]. Also, [[Alexander Hamilton]] completely rejected judicial supremacy in [[Federalist No. 78]]. | + | Under judicial supremacy, the branches of government are not co-equal. Instead, under judicial supremacy, courts are above checks and balances by other branches of government. This subverts the Constitutional [[Separation of Powers]] that exists to prevent the rise of tyrannical government. Numerous American statesmen have rejected judicial supremacy, including Presidents [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Andrew Jackson]], [[Abraham Lincoln]], and [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]. Also, [[Alexander Hamilton]] completely rejected judicial supremacy in [[Federalist No. 78]]. President Jackson's famous quip against judicial supremacy was his response to an overreaching [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision written by Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." |
| + | |||
| + | Judicial supremacy is a concept broader than [[judicial activism]], in that judicial supremacy is a mistaken belief system adopted by many attorneys, laypersons, and people in all walks of life. It attaches an inflated significance of the judiciary beyond what is justified. Judicial activism, meanwhile, relates to how liberals attempt to attain political goals through legal decisions, such as legislating from the bench. Law schools are bastions of judicial supremacy where all of the professors believe in, while a few law professors may oppose judicial activism. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Roy Moore]] is an example of a former state supreme court justice who rejected judicial supremacy. | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 16: | ||
==Court== | ==Court== | ||
| − | The first case of judicial supremacy was the 1958 case [[Cooper v. Aaron]], which asserted that because of the 1803 decision in [[Marbury v. Madison]], that "This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system." | + | The first case of judicial supremacy was the 1958 case ''[[Cooper v. Aaron]]'', which asserted that because of the 1803 decision in ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', that "This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system." |
| − | The ''Cooper'' case justifies this position by taking one quote out of ''Marbury'', while disregarding the whole of the decision. ''Marbury'' is actually quite modest, despite the claims of the supremacists, and asserts that Congress is not constitutionally capable of extending the Court's jurisdiction further than Constitutional proscription.<ref>[ | + | The ''Cooper'' case justifies this position by taking one quote out of ''Marbury'', while disregarding the whole of the decision. ''Marbury'' is actually quite modest, despite the claims of the supremacists, and asserts that Congress is not constitutionally capable of extending the Court's jurisdiction further than Constitutional proscription.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/article/420389/not-law-land The Myth of Judicial Supremacy], [[National Review]]</ref> |
But what the supremacists are not looking to do is stay within the framework of Constitutionality, instead, they are trying to break free from its bonds and make the judiciary the most powerful branch. One author notes of judicial supremacy that "the court defines effective constitutional meaning such that other government officials are bound to adhere not only to the Court's disposition of a specific case but also to the Court's constitutional reasoning."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=0PG-DzJjfvYC&pg=PA7 Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History]</ref> | But what the supremacists are not looking to do is stay within the framework of Constitutionality, instead, they are trying to break free from its bonds and make the judiciary the most powerful branch. One author notes of judicial supremacy that "the court defines effective constitutional meaning such that other government officials are bound to adhere not only to the Court's disposition of a specific case but also to the Court's constitutional reasoning."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=0PG-DzJjfvYC&pg=PA7 Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History]</ref> | ||
| − | This much was stated plainly in the 1992 case [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]], where the court declared itself above the people when it wrote that it was "invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals."<ref name=constituting /> Judges, however, are not elected by the people and thus, are not their direct representatives. This point of view places the Supreme Court at the head of an unauthorized, ongoing [[Constitutional Convention]].<ref>[http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-supreme-court-as-sitting-constitutional-convention/ The Supreme Court as Sitting Constitutional Convention]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=NFy6N6dRhT0C&pg=PA62 Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History]</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-problem-of-judicial-supremacy The Problem of Judicial Supremacy]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ea05iZJUFlAC&pg=PA93 All Hail the Death of Truth! the Advent of the Postmodern Era]</ref><ref>[http://spectator.org/48353_ongoing-constitutional-convention/ The Ongoing Constitutional Convention], [[American Spectator]]</ref><ref>[ | + | This much was stated plainly in the 1992 case ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', where the court declared itself above the people when it wrote that it was "invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals."<ref name=constituting /> Judges, however, are not elected by the people and thus, are not their direct representatives. This point of view places the Supreme Court at the head of an unauthorized, ongoing [[Constitutional Convention]].<ref>[http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-supreme-court-as-sitting-constitutional-convention/ The Supreme Court as Sitting Constitutional Convention]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=NFy6N6dRhT0C&pg=PA62 Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History]</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-problem-of-judicial-supremacy The Problem of Judicial Supremacy]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ea05iZJUFlAC&pg=PA93 All Hail the Death of Truth! the Advent of the Postmodern Era]</ref><ref>[http://spectator.org/48353_ongoing-constitutional-convention/ The Ongoing Constitutional Convention], [[American Spectator]]</ref><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/05/mark-levin-wows-state-legislators-take-your-power-back/ Mark Levin Wows State Legislators: 'Take Your Power Back'], [[Breitbart.com]]</ref><ref>[http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/10/01/constitutional-interpretation-in-republican-and-mixed-regimes/ Constitutional Interpretation in Republican and Mixed Regimes]</ref> Much judicial supremacy can be seen in cases regarding abortion.<ref>Duke, Selwyn (July 8, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/32665-save-babies-and-abort-judicial-supremacy Save Babies and Abort Judicial Supremacy]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 8, 2019.</ref> |
In 2007, [[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]] [[John Roberts]] wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."<ref>[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]</ref> | In 2007, [[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]] [[John Roberts]] wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."<ref>[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]</ref> | ||
==Judicial veto== | ==Judicial veto== | ||
| − | Despite the fact that many of the supremacist school claim ''Marbury's'' [[Judicial review]] ruling as their platform, the Constitution does not simply give power to judges to veto laws.<ref>[ | + | Despite the fact that many of the supremacist school claim ''Marbury's'' [[Judicial review]] ruling as their platform, the Constitution does not simply give power to judges to veto laws.<ref>[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/05/how-to-read-the-constitution-self-government-and-the-jurisprudence-of-originalism How to Read the Constitution: Self-Government and the Jurisprudence of Originalism]</ref> |
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
* [[Mark Levin|Levin, Mark R.]] ''Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America'' (2005) | * [[Mark Levin|Levin, Mark R.]] ''Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America'' (2005) | ||
* [[Phyllis Schlafly|Schlafly, Phyllis M.]] ''The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges And How to Stop It'' (2004) | * [[Phyllis Schlafly|Schlafly, Phyllis M.]] ''The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges And How to Stop It'' (2004) | ||
| + | * Berger, Raoul ''[[Government by Judiciary]] (1977) | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* [[Checks and balances]] | * [[Checks and balances]] | ||
* [[Federalist Papers]] | * [[Federalist Papers]] | ||
| + | * [[Judicial activism]] | ||
* [[Legislative supremacy]] | * [[Legislative supremacy]] | ||
| + | * [[Report of 1800]] | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 45: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| + | * [http://www.pseagles.com/How_Congress_Should_Respond_to_Justice_Kennedy How Congress Should Respond to Justice Kennedy - by Phyllis Schlafly July 1, 2015] | ||
* [https://www.c-span.org/video/?182079-1/men-black-supreme-court Men In Black: The Supreme Court] | * [https://www.c-span.org/video/?182079-1/men-black-supreme-court Men In Black: The Supreme Court] | ||
* [http://krisannehall.com/answering-claim-judicial-supremacy/ Answering the Claim of Judicial Supremacy], KrisAnne Hall | * [http://krisannehall.com/answering-claim-judicial-supremacy/ Answering the Claim of Judicial Supremacy], KrisAnne Hall | ||
| − | + | * [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/32446-judge-would-kill-miss-heartbeat-bill-time-to-kill-judicial-supremacy Judge Would Kill Miss. Heartbeat Bill — Time to Kill Judicial Supremacy], by Selwyn Duke of ''[[The New American]]'', May 26, 2019. | |
| + | {{Liberalism}} | ||
[[Category:Judicial Activism]] | [[Category:Judicial Activism]] | ||
[[Category:Law]] | [[Category:Law]] | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court]] | ||
[[Category:United States Political Terms]] | [[Category:United States Political Terms]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:25, January 24, 2024
Judicial Supremacy is the liberal, elitist view that courts are "supreme" over the other two branches of government and the Constitution, and that courts have the authority to tell the president and Congress what they may or may not do. As explained by Phyllis Schlafly in her classic book on the topic, The Supremacists (2d ed. 2006):[1]
| “ | Textbooks still say that we have three balanced branches of government – but textbooks are badly behind the times because one branch has assumed authority over the other two. Today, we are suffering from the oppressive rule of judicial supremacists who have replaced the rule of law with the rule of judges. | ” |
Under judicial supremacy, the courts seize power for themselves to have the final say over issues of policy up to and including the creation of policy, instead of policy makers or even the voting public, as courts impose their own view utilizing the doctrine a Living Constitution.[2] In this light, judicial supremacy amounts to grabbing power by one branch of government to positively create law.
Under judicial supremacy, the branches of government are not co-equal. Instead, under judicial supremacy, courts are above checks and balances by other branches of government. This subverts the Constitutional Separation of Powers that exists to prevent the rise of tyrannical government. Numerous American statesmen have rejected judicial supremacy, including Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Also, Alexander Hamilton completely rejected judicial supremacy in Federalist No. 78. President Jackson's famous quip against judicial supremacy was his response to an overreaching U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
Judicial supremacy is a concept broader than judicial activism, in that judicial supremacy is a mistaken belief system adopted by many attorneys, laypersons, and people in all walks of life. It attaches an inflated significance of the judiciary beyond what is justified. Judicial activism, meanwhile, relates to how liberals attempt to attain political goals through legal decisions, such as legislating from the bench. Law schools are bastions of judicial supremacy where all of the professors believe in, while a few law professors may oppose judicial activism.
Roy Moore is an example of a former state supreme court justice who rejected judicial supremacy.
Background
A supremacist is one who believes in or advocates the supremacy of a particular group.[3] Supremacism is the implementation of the agenda of a supremacist.
The better, and more traditional, view is that the U.S. Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land, and that three branches of the federal government (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary) are equally responsible for upholding the Constitution and for applying checks and balances against usurpation in power by a rival branch.
Court
The first case of judicial supremacy was the 1958 case Cooper v. Aaron, which asserted that because of the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, that "This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system."
The Cooper case justifies this position by taking one quote out of Marbury, while disregarding the whole of the decision. Marbury is actually quite modest, despite the claims of the supremacists, and asserts that Congress is not constitutionally capable of extending the Court's jurisdiction further than Constitutional proscription.[4]
But what the supremacists are not looking to do is stay within the framework of Constitutionality, instead, they are trying to break free from its bonds and make the judiciary the most powerful branch. One author notes of judicial supremacy that "the court defines effective constitutional meaning such that other government officials are bound to adhere not only to the Court's disposition of a specific case but also to the Court's constitutional reasoning."[5]
This much was stated plainly in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the court declared itself above the people when it wrote that it was "invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals."[2] Judges, however, are not elected by the people and thus, are not their direct representatives. This point of view places the Supreme Court at the head of an unauthorized, ongoing Constitutional Convention.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Much judicial supremacy can be seen in cases regarding abortion.[13]
In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."[14]
Judicial veto
Despite the fact that many of the supremacist school claim Marbury's Judicial review ruling as their platform, the Constitution does not simply give power to judges to veto laws.[15]
Bibliography
- Levin, Mark R. Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (2005)
- Schlafly, Phyllis M. The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges And How to Stop It (2004)
- Berger, Raoul Government by Judiciary (1977)
See also
References
- ↑ http://www.pseagles.com/images/4/49/The_Supremacists_by_Phyllis_Schlafly.pdf
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 "What is Progress?" by Woodrow Wilson – Guest Essayist: Robert Clinton, Professor and Chair Emeritus, Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
- ↑ The Supremacists, Foreword, by Phyllis Schlafly
- ↑ The Myth of Judicial Supremacy, National Review
- ↑ Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History
- ↑ The Supreme Court as Sitting Constitutional Convention
- ↑ Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History
- ↑ The Problem of Judicial Supremacy
- ↑ All Hail the Death of Truth! the Advent of the Postmodern Era
- ↑ The Ongoing Constitutional Convention, American Spectator
- ↑ Mark Levin Wows State Legislators: 'Take Your Power Back', Breitbart.com
- ↑ Constitutional Interpretation in Republican and Mixed Regimes
- ↑ Duke, Selwyn (July 8, 2019). Save Babies and Abort Judicial Supremacy. The New American. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
- ↑ United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.
- ↑ How to Read the Constitution: Self-Government and the Jurisprudence of Originalism
External links
- How Congress Should Respond to Justice Kennedy - by Phyllis Schlafly July 1, 2015
- Men In Black: The Supreme Court
- Answering the Claim of Judicial Supremacy, KrisAnne Hall
- Judge Would Kill Miss. Heartbeat Bill — Time to Kill Judicial Supremacy, by Selwyn Duke of The New American, May 26, 2019.