The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It

The author is one of the most potent grassroots politicial activists in the country over the last generation, so she does generate controversy, and her effectiveness inflames the passions of her opponents which probably accounts for most of the one-star ratings. Okay. But what about the actual merits of the book? The author is also an attorney by training. She has researched the subject well and supports the premise with a clear and cogent survey of the history of judicial activisim and the mischief it has caused. For those who have had enough of judges overreaching the duties of their office and snatching legislative powers away from congress and state assemblies, this book is a refreshingly candid look at what's wrong, how we got into this mess, and constitutional remedies to get back on track. I always appreciate the glorious combination of brevity and clarity, and this book does not disappoint. Many people are unaware that the constitution grants Congress the power to legislate exceptions to the court's jurisdiction (i.e. tell federal courts what they can and cannot hear). Mrs. Schlafly's development of this idea is worth the price of the book alone.

I totally agree with Phyllis Schafly and I gained better insight into the whole judicial process and the long-term disastrous social effects of judical inperialism by those who make up law and precedent from their own minds and ambiguous feeling. Phyllis takes you through watershed judical pronouncements by subject and summarizes simialr cases to give the reader a focused understanding of rulings by subject. If you are in a hurry and are looking for a quick, but telling understanding in diverse areas of law--this book is helpful and a good primer for those who want to an introduction to the originalist or texualist view point of judical interpretation. I bought the book because I am doing research on abortion and I needed a practical grasp of the underlying social and political climate that coalested into the convuluded judical reasonings behind that fateful Roe decision. I feel that this book, rounded out my view and I gained a fuller understanding of the interrelated issues. Men In Black by Mark Levin gave a chronoloical approach to the devolution of the renegage court--where Pat Robertson's Courting Disaster gave the religious and social context of the constitution's framers to give tremendous depth of understanding into the thinking and background of that brilliant God-given documentation. His book peers into the soul of the constitutional writers and I gained a new revelation and appreciation of the indispensibility of the Christian faith as absolutely critical to the success of our nation. This book rounded out my understanding, reinforced introductory legal concepts so I was better able to grasp the guiding principles and reasonings of the clandestine supreme court.

Phyllis Schlafly masterfully presents the core problem in American government today: there are no checks and balances when it comes to judicial power. As an attorney I know from experience that there is one rule that trumps all other rules: judges do as they please. We have a Nevada supreme court which ruled that an amendment to the Nevada constitution was, effectively, unconstitutional and therefore refused to enforce it. There is no doubt that judges see their branch of government as superior in authority to the legislative and executive - combined. They do not recognize the other two branches of government as legitimate checks and balances to their own power. The Supremacists is a compelling review of the problem we face today, Phyllis Schlafly sets forth some useful ideas to reverse our slide into judicial tyranny. Her only fault is that she does not go far enough.

Great book. This is the only book that correctly identifies judicial supremacy as the core of the problem with the courts, and gives practical suggestions on what to do about it. For example, we don't need a constitutional amendment to stop same-sex marriage, because Congress can just withdraw court jurisdiction to DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act). This book clearly proves that the courts do not need to be making law in the way that they do. It all started in the Warren Court about 50 years, and the bad, activist, anti-democratic decisions have been the result of erroneous thinking about the constitutional role of the courts.

This book is an excellent summary and analysis of our current constitutional predicament. Even if Mrs. Schlafly's legal and historical arguments are incorrect--and I don't believe they are--it is at least a problem that the behavior of the courts in recent decades has become such a source of division. We need a way out of this mess, and we won't find it by being complacent.The previous review speaks for itself. For every person on the Right who is annoyed by challenges to his unexamined opinions, there is at least one such person on the Left.Is it really so obvious, for instance, that there is no problem with the Supreme Court seeking "precedents" for its opinions in the legislation and case law of foreign countries? Is it irrational to wonder whether one judge should be permitted to nullify laws passed by a majority of citizens--based on his divination of the "motives" behind the law? Are we so sure that this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind--or that our judgment is better than theirs?