Your invocation of "judicial tyranny" seeks to undermine the checks and balances the founders put in place against tyranny. Here's a view that differs from yours:
As used by the right wing, "judicial tyranny" is an especially dangerous political idea. It attacks the very foundations of our political system, threatening the democratic rights and freedoms that make dissent possible.
The U.S. Constitution rests on a system of checks and balances. Three branches of government--a legislature, executive, and judiciary--are each given different powers, so that no one part of the government can amass too much power. The federal system has been copied by each of the fifty states.
Why did the framers of the Constitution do it this way? For two reasons. First, they had just fought a war against colonial rule, in which they felt themselves subject to tyrannical rule at the hands of the King's appointed officials. So, they wanted to make sure that power was spread between an executive and an elected legislature. Second, they worried about the destructive effects of popular passions. They created checks and balances, and especially a judiciary designed to comment on the constitutionality of laws, because they were most concerned about the tyranny of the majority!
In other words, the judiciary exists precisely as a check against the will of the majority, when the majority threatens constitutional rights and privileges. Its role, in part, is to make sure that the rights of unpopular minorities are not trampled upon by a majority whose prejudices have been inflamed. So, when judges do something like overturning a law or a ballot measure supported by the majority of voters or elected officials, they are not behaving like tyrants. They are doing their jobs.
"Judicial tyranny" as a concept is insidious. It creates a climate of hostility toward the proper workings of our Constitution. It makes judges the target of popular anger, and indirectly attempts to intimidate them. It builds support for efforts at the state level--and even nationally--to call a constitutional convention or recklessly amend the constitution which, in the context of the extremist right's current power, is truly frightening.
"Judicial tyranny" is politically shrewd. It has the power to weld together religious extremists and political conservatives; it speaks to resentments about race, gender, and sexual identity; it appeals to a business community annoyed by judicial decisions that protect the environment. The slogan "judicial tyranny" is also hypocritical and cynical. Right-wing conservatives claim to speak in defense of tradition. But there is hardly anything more traditional in the United States than the independence of our judiciary.
So, when you hear the phrase, don't let it slip by. Recognize it and expose it for what it is: the latest right-wing sound bite, designed to confuse, manipulate, and mobilize. |
