Why America has a Problem of Judicial Tyranny 4

Even England, before the Constitution, had a check on the highest court:

"The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven."

Brutus, "The Federalist Papers," Anti-Federalist Paper 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.

So, one of the solutions to the problem of judicial tyranny in this country is to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court shall not be the final word. It needs a "tribunal in which their errors may be corrected." Better yet, let's agree that the vote of one Supreme Court Justice (in a close case where the Justices know it will be a 5-4 vote, one Justice can decide the law for the entire United States) shall not be the final word for the entire country.

Mark Levin, in his book, "The Liberty Amendments," proposes the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent a tyrannical Supreme Court:

"SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.

"SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.

"SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.

"SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

"SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.

"SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures , the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court. SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override."

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 49-50). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.

There is also the option of nullification by the states. The states could take back their lawful, constitutional authority and stand against federal court tyranny. The legislatures and governors could issue lawfully decided contradictions to the federal courts as they attempt unconstitutional takeovers of the states and their laws.

There's also the Article V amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Then there's the long term work of cultural kingdom advancement, which takes generations. The latter may be the path we must take. And we'll see the gospel, like a mustard seed, gradually grow into the largest tree in the garden.

Shall we live with judicial tyranny, or shall we do something about it. The Christian will not let a godless idolization of an institution stop him from fighting for an alternative that preserves the independence of the judiciary without giving it carte blanche power to overrule every other authority.