Judicial Tranny Analysis

Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? Is a conglomeration of articles and short essays that attempts to expose the federal court’s relatively recent intrusion into our way of life by way of immoral legislative influence; made possible by presidents, congressmen, and apathetic voters who have relinquished their consent without contest. The author, Mark I. Sutherland and his associates believe that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the three branches of government has been usurped by an overreaching, immoral federal court system. The book explores how Judges have been influencing and shaping social and political policy for years by legislating from the judicial bench. In short, Americans have exchanged the rule of law for the rule by the judges. However, it does a poor job in addressing other major issues concerning the federal court system as a whole.

2

“We live in the greatest nation on Planet Earth, but it is becoming more and more apparent that in order to keep it, the people must do something to stop the federal courts that are daily setting themselves above the law and dictating to us how we should live, and what we should think” (Sutherland M. et al p. 9, 2007) Those are the beginning words of the preface to the book Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America. The work expounds upon the idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with our country’s judicial system, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. The main idea behind the book is that an unelected judicial branch has taken upon itself new powers and is legislating from the court bench without regard to the general consent of the people and our Constitutional process. The entire book comes from very Christian world vi...

... middle of paper ...

...deral judiciary by assuming that his interpretation of the Constitution is unequivocally true. Admittedly, he does a remarkable job at supporting his case, but again he assumes that everyone is of the same mindset.
Judicial Tyranny was a very thought-provoking read and even though the reader may agree with Mr. Sutherland’s view point, a rational thinker must admit that he and his colleagues do the very same thing they accuse the federal courts are doing - forcing their beliefs and opinions (court rulings) on the reader. It can be reasonably argued that some of the statements written were just as radical and antagonistic as it accused the judiciary of being. Even though I may agree with most of what was written, as an unbiased reader I have to admit that the work was presumptive and does not fully address other important issues concerning the federal court system.