Robertson illustrated his point about the dangers of the Supreme Court's power anecdotally, such as when, later in the book he talks about the McCain-Feingold Bill which was designed to restrict campaign finance and reform the ways political campaigns were funded both privately and via government assistance. Although the Republicans in neither the Legislative or Executive branch supported the bill, they agreed to pass it in order to end the debate, believing that the bill would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in that it violated first amendment laws, among other things (Robertson 2004,-page 234). When the voted for or signed the bill as the case may have been, they believed that the court would ultimately overrule the other branches by finding the proposed legislation unconstitutional based on the text of the law itself. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with this perspective and ruled the law legal. The Congress was so focused on being bipartisan and cooperative because they felt the court would never let the bill pass into law. The other branches essentially expected the Court to do their job for them, namely kill an illegal piece of legislation.
One negative component to this book, or at least a component that was not pertinent to the argument had to do with the issue of Christianity in the judiciary. In this country, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. The religion of those founders, including the members of the first Supreme Court may have been Christian. It can even be logically asserted that their Christian beliefs formed the basis of their system of moral right and wrong which helped the other founders write the Constitution and the laws of the United States in the first place. However, Robertson takes far too much time to discuss this relationship between religion and politics. Robertson is known for conservative views based on strict Christian interpretation and has often used religion as the basis for arguments regarding politics and legislation. In this, his credibility comes into question because he is not examining the issue through the sterile lens of a reporter or political scientist. In an
He is looking for ways to further promote his religious beliefs and to extent a religious perspective on the laws of the land, which is illegal according to the constitution Robertson, claims to be so concerned about and forces the reader to question the proven assertions he says.
Overall, it can be seen that Robertson makes an interesting and important point. The Supreme Court is taking on powers that were not originally given it by the Constitution. They have in the past applied amendments of that document to situations where it did not seem to fit. At the same time, he makes a religious appeal which has no place in a political debate as the First Amendment clearly grants the citizens the right to religious beliefs of their choosing. If the reader takes his point into account and weeds out the religiosity, then it is a text worth reading.
Works Cited
Appel, J.M. (2009, August 22). Anticipating the incapacitated justice. Huffington Post.
Center for Internet and Society. (2005). Pat Robertson suggests that Muslims shouldn't serve as judges. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA. Retrieved from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/chander/archives/003105.shtml
Robertson, P. (2004). Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is usurping the Power of Congress and the People. Integrity: Brentwood, TN.
