Tyranny arrives in many forms and one aspect if it that has arrived in the United States is found in the court system of the nation, more specifically the United States Supreme Court and some of the lower federal courts. The tyranny arrives when courts make rulings that don’t follow established law; established law meaning that which is made in conformance with the U.S. Constitution and the respective state constitutions.  Otherwise the law has no validity. That fact isn’t popular and when it is mentioned, those who believe that courts are the last word, no matter how wrong the ruling, react with vehement behavior. Sandra Day O’ Conner, a former justice, thinks that any criticism is an attack on the judiciary. She said it under growing political attack and since it is the weakest of the three branches, it needs to be defended.

O’Conner is correct on both counts. It is the weakest by design of the Constitution and it is under political attack by the liberal left that wants to install the type judges that will rule in favor of social conscience irrespective of the law, but that isn’t what she meant. Her meaning is that people are questioning the court’s wrong-headed decisions. The greatest defense for the courts is to make sure that their decisions are constitutional, but O’Conner seems to have ignored that simple fact.

A pernicious doctrine has infiltrated the courts and the thinking of the people. It is that court decisions are sacred and can’t be changed. That falls under stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed. In other words, that doctrine protects decisions on which rulings in other similar cases are based. No matter that the ruling cited may be wrong, the doctrine protects it and thus bad law (which the court can’t constitutionally create but does through the decisions) stands as the law of the land which too often violates legitimate (constitutional) rights and becomes the fuel of tyranny.

Justice Stephen Breyer is on record against overturning decisions used for precedent. He is charged with following the Constitution and yet he participates in rulings that violate the rights of people. Kelo is a prime example. That ruling allows cities to condemn property and sell it to developers whose creations will broaden the tax base and fill the coffers with more money than will the taxes on the properties that are condemned. The Court said to the effect that it was for the greater good and therefore proper to do. It was a real butchering of the constitutional provision providing of eminent domain. Using Breyer’s logic, Kelo can’t be overturned, and as such, property owners are helpless before the tyranny of any city’s politicians that decide to take property for tax purposes.

One final observation must be made, and if the man is ever able to do what he says, it will result in rulings that will forever haunt the nation. Barack Obama said in reference to courts and judges: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," Obama explained. No matter that the teenage mom is responsible for her conduct. No matter that it isn’t the court’s business to be concerned with the bad behavior of an individual except when it violates the law. Touchy feely has no legal foundation, but rest assured, if Obama ever gets the opportunity to appoint judges such madness will become precedent, including huge doses of tyranny to go with it. Social considerations will trump the law and people will be forced to accept edicts and follow them no matter how ruinous they will prove to be.

 The facts bear the truth of judicial tyranny. In Sorting It Out, the best way to stop such ram rod rulings by the courts is to have more justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia. That will drive Senator Chucky Schumer mad.

© 08-08-2007 DEC