This study reviews Pat Robertson's "Courting disaster: How the Supreme Court is usurping the power of Congress and the people." Pat Robertson is the founder and chairperson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, founder of Regent University, and The Center for Law and Justice. He and his wife have four children and thirteen grandchildren. They reside in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Using both legal and religious points-of-view, Robertson attempts to prove that the current operation of the judicial system is dangerous to both the republican form of government and our individual freedoms. While seeking to strengthen his argument, the author has compiled fascinating facts, quotes, case decisions, and opinions of the Court (Mu-ller-Fahrenholz, 2007).
From this study, it is evident that Robertson undertook a political expedition seeking to identify various issues that bedeviled the American society. However, he fails to provide solutions to the identified problems. This is an action conscious book. It is a warning to do something about the data shared. When thoroughly archived, Robertson's book follows the order of a dysfunctional legal framework. The conclusion strongly spells out the action required.
In his book, Pat Robertson has examined the risk posed by the absence of judicial limits to the country's Christian heritage. He further shades light on how this has led to the steady erosion of both democracy and representative government.
Robertson's seems to target the broader audience. This decision of the target audience is on the mark as support and acceptance of the interrogation era is dominant among the broader population than it is among political elites (Robertson, 2011).
The principal shortcoming with this book is the absence of a solution. He focuses on the part of a petition to God, and I concur with that. However, he appears to state that the way we address this issue is by selecting exceptional Justices regardless. However, this solution is dependent on consistent political success, and the capacity of people to keep their hands distant of the unrestricted power. Republican nominees (Robertson, 2011) have not instituted some things that Robertson admits. Robertson gives six naturally conceivable options:
1. Congress could deny, through a mere majority vote, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
2. Congress could pass legislation expressing that the Supreme Court is not the country's supreme law
3. Congress could enact tort reform
4. The House could reprimand judges who overstep their exceptional conduct clause by being activists.
5. Congress could increase the number of serving judges from nine to whatever it takes to get a bigger share
6. The individuals and their representatives could make the case to conform to the 10th Amendment (Edwards & Meese, 2011).
Elsewhere, Robertson points out noncompliance as an alternative that the people and the president may choose to adopt. While giving that perhaps a President could ignore, the greater part of these scenarios are insufficient. The incumbent Congress might overturn the first. The second is unimportant and could be overturned. The third does not tackle the issue of an activist judge by any means. However, it puts limits on lawsuits. The fourth has some legitimacy but is troublesome to arraigning judges because it contradicts them. Exceptionally extreme cases must be yielded for impeachment. Somebody overturning an American law dependent upon International point of reference might be the reason behind my thoughts. The fifth was a terrible thought in FDR's day up to today. The sixth appears to be close to a viable solution, but individuals asking their representatives to impose limits on their power are unrealistic and not practical (Melashenko & Smith, 2009).
In the next point, Robertson appears to be a part of the problem, but part of the solution. He wants a National answer to a national government issue (Robertson, 2011). He needs individuals to converse with their Nation delegates about furnishing a proportional payback the tenth Amendment, which shows power is held for the states. He closes the book with a request to reelect President Bush and Republican or conservative Senators. In the most blatant case of inconsistency, he praises the legal activism in Brown v Board of Education but does not like it elsewhere. By citing George Wills, he notes that an unintended outcome of Brown is that the Supreme Court now tries to right viewed as social ills by activism (Sutherland & Dobson, 2009).
One cannot truly support activism when they like it and rail against it when they do not. Discrimination is ethically wrong, and some questions arise from this perspective. Did the Supreme Court have the right to strike it down? Were their reasons of striking it down right valid and inevitable? Robertson did not identify the roots of the problem. He focuses on the later decades of the 60's and forward because they are the most exceedingly terrible. He specifies the authors but does not draw a line between Federalism and Nationalism. He touches on some early court instances of activism, but does not indicate how they fit into the current situation. Robertson composed a book about the stakes in innovative political issues. He failed to propose long-lasting solutions to the problems.
If somebody needs to read a provocative book, Pat Robertson's one is exceptional. The book investigates and composes incredible knowledge from a Christian viewpoint. While I ordinarily cannot help contradicting Pat Robertson's philosophy on the 700 Club, his religious philosophy degree integrated with his law degree gives a fascinating inclination on the American scenario (Robertson, 2011). The proposition, which I concur with, relates to the Supreme Court and the Federal Court framework as wild and far touching on their constitutional limits and needs. He has incredible research on quotes from Justices and other literature sources.
The plot was obviously satisfactory: a credit to smart investigative work. Robertson writes that there is a more imperative explanation for why that his ghastly situation never took place: the Central Intelligence Agency gave the United Kingdom significant insights, utilizing "improved cross examination systems" affirmed by the Bush Administration (Edwards & Meese, 2011). Consistent with Robertson, British powers were given pivotal help by a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay who spoke of arrangements for the utilization of liquid explosives, which can effortlessly be made with items purchased at cosmetics shops.
Robertson claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the key strategist of the 9/11 terror attacks, uncovered key knowledge in the wake of being water-boarded by the CIA a hundred and eighty-three times. Mohammed spoke in the ballpark of a 1995 plot, situated in the Philippines, to explode planes with fluid explosives. Robertson writes that, in the wake of 2006, "a keen CIA administrator" informed "suspicious" British authorities that radicals under investigation in England seemed to be seeking after a comparative plan (Edwards & Meese, 2011).
Robertson's book offers a tireless guard of the Bush Administration's investigation approaches, which, consistent with numerous commentators, authorized torture and yielded no calculable intelligence benefits. In addition, Robertson assaults the Obama Administration for having banned methods like water boarding. He writes, "America could die as a consequence" (Robertson, 2011).
However, Robertson is preferred at passing on fear over at transferring the facts. His record of the thwarted Heathrow plot, for instance, is "totally and utterly wrong," as per Peter Clarke, who was the head of Scotland Yard's hostile to terrorism branch in 2006 (Robertson, 2011). "The conclusion that what was being planned was an attack targeting airliners was actually based upon intelligence assembled in the U.K.," Clarke said. This propels Robertson's notion that "version of occasions is essentially not distinguished by individuals who were closely included in the airlines investigations in 2006." Nor did Scotland Yard need to be told about the dangers of terrorists utilizing liquid explosives. The attackers who ambushed London's system of public transportation in 2005, Clarke pointed out, "used exactly the same materials (Zelden, 2007).
How the book compares with the course materials on the topic
This landmark work adds onto the topic of alarming spiritual implications where justices run amok. From the destruction of social standards to the increased hostility against religion and the assaulting of the sacred foundation of marriage, this book is an eye opening on the topic of devastating impacts of the judiciary, which is out of control. Robertson develops a compelling scenario by arguing that judicial activism is the pivotal problem of the modern world. He further calls upon interested citizens across the U.S. To pay attention to the proceedings in the courts and act promptly (Zelden, 2007).
How the book has changed the way, I think about the subject
I can only conquer the courts have destroyed power balance, which was instituted into the government by the founding fathers of the nation. When courts are utilized to amend laws, voting becomes valueless because they tend to override the voters' decision. A single vote by a citizen turns powerless when nine judges override the vote (Zelden, 2007).
Robertson has sporadically focused on controversial subjects. He fosters various strong expressions to attract attention regarding an extensive variety…