redblueamerica.com

One of the most often quoted statements in support of Judicial authority of Judicial Review by liberals is that they must support the rights of minorities against the mob.  Historically speaking that is inaccurate.

The first act of Judicial Review was exercised in Marbury v. Madison in  1803.  This is Fourteen years after the creation of the constitution.  That means the Court operated without exercising such authority for that long doing what courts in England were doing: dealing with ordinary cases and allowing the political branches to do as they wished.  How remarkable.

Chief Justice John Marshall was a political genius.  He waited 29 years to exercise that power again in the Cherokee cases.  Think about that.  For 29 years the Court did not - DID NOT- strike any law down the governement had passed.   Why?  Because marshall slowly was building up the Courts power.  It was a power grab worthy of Napoleon.  So much for Judicial Review being enshrined in the Constitution!

I would like to add that the false power of Judicial Review does not mean the Courts are not necessary.  As I stated before the British system CURRENTLY has a Supreme Court, the Law Lords, which lack the power of Judicial Review.  Think about that.  They are as free as we are - even freer according to some Euro-lovers- but their courts lack the power to strike down acts of Parliament.  What is impossible for Liberals and Conservatives to imagine is commonlplace in parliamentary nations across Europe.  In fact Liberals who love the alleged protection that European nations offer for minorities, should acknowledge that all those laws have come about through acts of parliament - their courts do nothing in that regard because they are composed of government bureacrats.

What I am trying to convey seems so radical to those indoctrinated by liberal legal institutions but it is not radical on the world stage.  Our parent nation has such a system and the Founding Fathers did not want the Supreme Court to have this power.  No - IT was SEIZED in a slow silent revolution.

For all the Flaws of Jackson - and his treatment of the Cherokee was horrific and wrong - he knew the Court was an impotent creature trying to seize power.  A vast majority of the American people supported his decision to treat the Cherokee that way.  The people had spoken and sometimes the people make mistakes.  That is why we are a Republic and not an Oligarchy.

Liberals like to call the decision of the people the Mob.  Think about that.  No founding father, none, ever argued that the power of judicial review should exist to protect the minority of anything.  That Idea was created in the 1960's! 

The defintion of a Republic is itself representative democracy.  Representatives act on behalf of the people and are held accountable to them through elections.  These judges can legislate through fiat and are there for life.

Let me put it in terms liberals understand.  Liberals hate what the Supreme Court did in the 2000 Election.  I actually agree.  There we saw Judicial Activism not benefiting liberals and of course they have never stopped crying foul.  They were right the Court - should not interfere with the political branches.  Imagine a nine member Court composed of only Conservatives.  Imagine a liberal congress and president trying to pass universally desired laws and the court striking down law after law.  This actually happened in the FDR administration.  His response was to introduce the Court Packing idea.  The public did not take it too well, although FDR was easily re-elected, but the Court got the hint and immediately began giving the New Deal favorable decisions.  What better proof that the Courts should not deal with political matters as a third branch.  It can be bullied and should be.  Would that present and future presidents had enough courage to do like FDR and Jefferson did with the upstart Supreme Court.

I ask everyone to not believe me and read themselves how liberals have seized an institution - but that the reverse is also possible.  If a republic makes a decision then that is it.  The people have spoken - but rule by a few- NINE - even if they are considered wise is an oligarchy- it is tyrrany. 

Those who call Elective decisions by politicians who are held accountable as Mob Rule are royalists - elitists - and anti-republican.  They value Dictatorship by a few over the will of the people.  They call the majority a mob because they wish to seize power for their minoroty views.  The Communist Bolsheviks did that.  Liberals secretly love Lenin's line "The dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessity"  They believe that the people, the mob or proletariat, must be controlled because they are too stupid to be in control.  They want to be controlled by judges because they fear their own minority views will lose out.  That type of imposition is wrong whether your are a conservative or liberal.  It is the thought of elitists.

I say it is time the Supreme Court was stipped of the power of Judicial Review.  It is time the political branches told them to enforce their own decisions.  The nation will survive.  An order from a Court supporting views of a small few must be challenged and ignored.  We are not constrained by their decisions.  Either they practice judicial restraint or the Court will be ignored.  The time for this type of revolution is at hand!  The majority will back up the president because the majority view is being oppressed.