Judicial Tyranny


This Article draws response to common concern with the proposal to reestablish the Supreme Courts to a purely judicial responsibility, to avoid judicial tyranny, by rejuvenating the role of Justices when judging cases.


Sovereignty from extrinsic influence is indispensable to the public trust to the integrity of all professional judges who possess the duty to try cases based on preexisting law. However, such liberty is less suitable for those obliged to make fresh laws to govern prospected events. In a democratic state, those required make new laws are required to be accountable to the constituents, and not independent of interests and indifferent to their desires. Such chief dissatisfaction and unrest, with the judiciary is a basis for prudent concerns expressed in Justices, among others.


This book review covers one by Sutherland, Judicial Tyranny. The authors audiences are the law enforces and the general public. His objective is to shed light on issues on judicial tyranny. This book’s main objective is to bring the audience up to speed on the continuing struggle against an overstretched judicial operations and structure, without overwhelming the reader with legal double thoughts. The author has further achieved his objective to ensure that his audience grasp every theme through writing it in clear english, American, which is presented in nibble-sized pieces. After reading the principles in the book, the audience will better appreciate the role of their government and when or how to react at times when the judges throws the will of the citizens favoring projects on the latest social engineering. The author’s main argument is to ensure that his nation is brought back from the leaders in black robes, judges, who want to redefine everything the Americans are. Will the author succeed?

Sutherland argues that he lives the greatest nation on Earth. However he points out that it becoming more apparent that for that nation to remain in this state, a great nation, something must be done to bar the federal courts, which are day in and out, setting themselves over the law while dictating how citizens should live their lives and what they should think (Sutherland, 2005).

In support of Sutherland’s idea, take Edmund Burke, a famous British politician. Edmund Burke supported War to Independence when he was serving in a British Parliament. He made a basic truth stated, which applies to date that the only entity crucial for the triumph of judicial tyranny is for the good men to sit back and do nothing (Daniel et al, 1941).

This book does not change the way I think about this subject, judicial tyranny. It is true that we as the citizens have done little or nothing for too long. We will sooner or later pay the price for not doing what we should to obscure the move to oppress the citizens, I see it as the only noble and the way to handle this matter. But it is very late. The struggle has just begun. However, by reading Sutherlands work the audience is taking the initial step, and together the state can revolutionalise the nation (Sutherland, 2005).

The author supports his arguments presented in the book by first defining judicial tyranny. He terms it as a political epithet that is often used to define the actions of any unelected judge whose rulings nullify the policy decisions draw by elected officials, rule against enacted laws and violate the existing interpretations of the U.S. people’s Constitution.

The author reminds his audience the judicial tyranny as applied today in conventional circles, represents a type of judicial interpretation that results to case laws, which do not follow standards and those which exceeds the coverage of the prior established law. It can be contrasted against judicial restraint (Sutherland, 2005). I understood that the extent to which decisions of the judges are at some point characterized as tyrannical, leads to the ongoing disagreement over the suitable role and purpose of the judiciary, particularly in Canada, Australia, and the United States.

The author points out that the conservative opponents to the judicial tyranny assert that the judiciary does not need to create new law just to resolve a dispute or further interpreting the law. The opponents argue that the role of making laws is firmly a preserve under the legislature, and that where judges scheme into this responsibility, they render rulings on the foundations of individual convictions or other inappropriate basis.

Liberal politcos does not agree with the argument that judicial tyranny as applied by conservatives; persists today. Those of an extended liberal stand argue that the obligation of the judiciary from the doctrines of the powers separation will a some point unavoidably result to decisions that go beyond the already established laws, that this plays as a desirable and useful safeguard against majoritarianism. Judicial tyranny critics also question the opprobrium related with the terms, taking it as an indication of loaded language that contains the uncritical and unstated assumption, which the judiciary should never establish new laws when making a judgment (Sutherland, 2005). This work coincides to course materials on the topic in ensuring justice is rendered through the appropriate channels.


All the above is not to imply that U.S. unelected judges have lost their sense of responsibility to enforce and obey preexisting law. In fact, they do just that. However, the impact of the Supreme Court, a role model, is dwindling down. A similar conversion of the judges’ undertakings is also occurring in the federal trying courts, which contributes to an equivalent loss in transparency in all proceedings, in that level. The trials in high adversaries rendering of evidence in public have become a rare event in federal courtrooms. There are several palpable bases for this; conversely, they may be as a result of transformation of key judicial responsibilities at the higher levels.