Long read but an interesting dissertation on our judicial system, especially the US Supreme Court. Copied from a post in icaucus.org, Texas section
How to Stop the Tyrannical Judiciary
Quick quiz: What do we call a system of government in which an unelected cadre of self-professed wise men make decisions for a nation of millions, all the while insulting those millions as
We used to call it tyranny. Now, apparently, we call it an "independent judiciary."
At least that's the way the left sees it. The role of the judiciary in this country, according to liberals, is to act as a sort of
super-Senate, qadis on the hill who decide based on whim and fancy how
the rest of us should live. The American people are benighted morons;
the judiciary is full of brilliant moral thinkers. They must rule us.
This perspective, of course, would have sickened the Founding Fathers, who established an independent judiciary in order to adjudicate legal
disputes, not to rewrite laws at will. In fact, the founders recognized
the threat of judicial omnipotence, which is why they wrote the
Constitution so as to limit the judiciary: The judiciary cannot control
its own purse strings, nor can it even define its own jurisdiction.
Under Article III of the Constitution, Congress' power over the
judiciary doesn't end with up-or-down judicial nominee votes -- Congress
actually has the power to take whole areas of law away from the
Congress can create inferior courts, which means it can eliminate them, too. As to the jurisdiction of those courts, Congress can define it. Congress can even define the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: "In all cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be
party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the
other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under
such regulations as the Congress shall make." In other words, Congress
can carve out exceptions and regulations taking full swaths of judicial
oversight away from the judiciary.
This is not an accidental inclusion in the Constitution. It was an integral part of the document's construction. The Founding Fathers built the government around the
principle that powers would check one another; the supposed exception to
that rule has always been the judiciary, which remains unchecked. But
it wasn't supposed to remain unchecked -- Congress was supposed to have
the power to check the judiciary. Anti-federalist Robert Yates feared
that Congress would not be able to do anything about such a usurping
judiciary: "There is no power above them, to control any of their
decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot
be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are
independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under
heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves
independent of heaven itself."
Alexander Hamilton answered that if judges "should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT ... [that] would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that
[legislative] body." In other words, the legislature could trump the
judiciary just as easily as the judiciary could issue rulings trumping
It's time for the legislature to trump the judiciary. A simple, two-step process would do it. First, Congress need only invoke its power over appellate jurisdiction and remove it for all
federal cases involving issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and
immigration -- in fact, Congress has already limited federal judicial
jurisdiction in certain immigration cases. When the courts declare such
legislation unconstitutional, Congress can simply ignore them or defund
the courts accordingly.
This is hardly a radical suggestion. It is well within the constitutional scheme, which foresaw gridlock and friction as a central goal to checking the growth of government.
No doubt liberals will be dismayed. After all, they worship the judiciary that magically creates liberal-agenda "rights" out of whole cloth. Their
chief counterargument to the populist constitutional argument will be Brown v. Board of Education, which, they feel, justifies all intrusive judicial intervention into the republican system for all time. Brown v. Board
was, of course, a morally correct decision. It was also utterly
ineffective; only the Civil Rights Act of 1964 truly desegregated
America, as liberal legal scholar Gerald Rosenberg wrote in his seminal
work, "The Hollow Hope." And for every Brown v. Board, there is a Plessy v. Ferguson and a Dred Scott.
The true defenders of the Constitution must be the people. The courts pretend to care about the Constitution, but in truth, they care only
about their own political preferences. Our elected officials aren't much
better -- but at least we elect them. Our only hope for a true republic
of limited government and popular sovereignty lies in ourselves. Any
delegation of that ultimate constitutional power to an oligarchy of
unelected lifetime tenure politicians means that we no longer live under
a system that retains the consent of the governed.
NOVEMBER ELECTIONS MAY SET THE FUTURE OF AMERICA AND HOW LONG WE LAST AS A FREE REPUBLIC.