**Previously recorded by Phyllis Schlafly // June 2005 **
Many people have been fed up with judges for many years and for many different reasons, such as prayer in school, abortion, and capital punishment. What has brought the issue of judicial mischief to a head is the realization that we are not merely dealing with unrelated wrong decisions but with the systemic ideological error that proclaims the Rule of Judges. The liberals try to tell us that the Rule of Law requires the Supreme Court to be accepted as the final arbiter of constitutional questions. But they are just plain wrong. They are actually demanding that the Rule of Judges replace the Rule of Law, and that’s why we call them judicial supremacists.
The new battle cry of the liberals, who are still smarting from their losses in the last election, is their sanctimonious mantra that we must have an “independent” judiciary. What they really want is courts independent from the Constitution so that unelected judges can thumb their noses at our elected representatives in the other two branches of government.
The liberals claim they want us to respect judges just as we “respect the referee” in competitive sports even when we think he made the wrong call. But the fans would never tolerate a baseball umpire changing the rules of the game by calling a batter out after two strikes.
Likewise, we should not tolerate judges who try to change the rules of our written Constitution by pretending that its meaning is evolving, or that they have discovered new privileges in our written Constitution no one else has detected for two centuries, or that our Constitution must be changed to conform to modern trends in foreign law.
The Constitution is clear that it is not judges but the Constitution itself which is “the supreme law of the land.” The Constitution also specifies that every President must take an oath to the Constitution, not to the judges’ interpretation of the Constitution. Our right of self-government upholds the Rule of Law, but not the Rule of Judges.
