Friday, September 04, 2015

Judicial supremacy

According to Princeton law prof. Robert P. George, 

Judicial supremacy is an anti-constitutional doctrine, not a constitutional principle. Cases such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges are unconstitutional usurpations by the judiciary of the constitutional authority of the American people acting through their elected representatives in the Congress and state legislatures. The edicts handed down in these decisions are not "the law of the land" and should not be treated as such by the people or other public officials. What Abraham Lincoln said in rejecting the Court's lawless and usurpative ruling in Dred Scott remains true: to accept judicial supremacy would be for the American people to "resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." In the debate between Abraham Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, the author of the Dred Scott opinion, we should side with the Great Emancipator. To do otherwise is to abandon republican government and accept, to quote Thomas Jefferson, "the despotism of an oligarchy."

1 comment: