Let's make a New Year's Resolution that we will do something in 2005 to stop the dictatorship of the judiciary in the United States. The examples of this dictatorship range from medical malpractice suits which have bankrupted doctors and increased their insurance premiums to the high 5-figure and even 6-figure range, to billion dollar tobacco lawsuits, asbestos lawsuits, and the soon to come Twinkie lawsuits against fast-food providers.
But let's concentrate on the Roe v. Wade decision, lawsuits which prevent the public display of the 10 Commandments, or the display of nativity scenes and anything Christian. Let's take a hard look at judges who by their infamous decisions prevent the teaching of Christian principles in schools while mandating the study of the Koran. Let's concentrate on judges who see nothing wrong with taking the words "Under God" out of the pledge of allegiance, or allowing homosexual marriages. Let's focus on judges who think it's a good idea to let teenagers make decisions regarding abortions when they can't even enter into a legal contract on their own. Let's give an "eagle eye" stare to judges who think it's perfectly fine for a homosexual to serve as a Scout Master in the Boy Scouts. And let's not forget judges who are forcing Catholic hospitals to perform elective abortions.
There is no law passed by Congress requiring judicial enforcement in any of these areas. In each case, the judicial branch has invented law outside its Constitutional jurisdiction and even outside the scope of laws passed by Congress.
This is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. The Constitution itself states that Congress shall establish the inferior courts (those below the Supreme Court), which means that Congress may regulate what the inferior courts are allowed to rule upon. The Constitution also states that the judges of both the Supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices only during good behavior. The way the judicial branch is to behave is clearly demonstrated in Federalist Paper No. 78 written by Alexander Hamilton:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
And John Jay, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated in the last sentence of Federalist Paper No. 64 that, "motive to good behavior is amply afforded by the article on the subject of impeachments". In other words, the people are to find a way to kick those out of office who violate the Constitution they swore to uphold. If the judicial office in question is an elected position, vote them out at the next opportunity. If the position is appointed, petition the appointer for a dismissal. And do not grant any special immunity to Supreme Court justices. Blame cannot be assigned elsewhere if the electorate is unwilling to use the tools which the Constitution provides for recourse.
A good case can even be made for using impeachment in the case of Supreme Court justices more than in the inferior courts. In the latter, the people can petition Congress to restrict the scope of jurisdiction. This is not possible in the Supreme Court. In the inferior courts, appointees can be dismissed by the appointer. Once again, this is not possible in the Supreme Court. It can be argued that impeachment is the only swift recourse the people have to an unconstitutional act perpetrated by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, as in the case of Roe v. Wade, the people are relegated to fighting for tiny slices of justice on behalf of unborn babies for decades. This is not acceptable. Better and more expedient ways are available to deal with judges who flaunt the Constitution.
To summarize, the tools at our disposal to stop the dictatorship of the judiciary are as follows:
- Vote the offending justices out of office.
- Petition those who have the power of appointment to dismiss offending justices.
- Petition Congress to reduce the scope of jurisdiction for inferior courts where offending justices serve.
- Petition those with oversight responsibility to impeach the offending justices.
So you see, we the people are not without options, but in each case it will take effort and determination to effect change. Let us then resolve to do one of the above in 2005 the next time we hear a judge make yet another ridiculous ruling for which there is no authority in the law or in our Constitution. Working together, we can make a difference.
