Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges [Hardcover]

 

 

Create your own review

Bork's conservative politics are readily apparent in his writing, but his legal arguments are logical and apolitical. Hopefully this book will remind conservatives and liberals alike of the importance of proper legislative process. Bork argues that constitutional and international laws have become political tools with which judges impose "new class" political outcomes. Judges in different countries, interpreting different constitutions (or no constitution at all) signed and ratified at different times, representing different political and legal cultures, come to the same conclusion: the law requires judges to implement liberal political outcomes. Bork's case is pretty airtight.

The best chapter is on international law as it pertains to military affairs. His argument is devastating, and changed the way I look at the UN and other internationl bodies.

I believe it was Nietzsche who said that the moment of total victory marks the beginning of the end. Bork didn't delve deeply enough into the OPERATIONAL foundations of the Constitution; therefore his pessimism -- that we are powerless before the balck-robed usurpers -- is flawed. The antidote is for us to get clear about how the Constitutional machinery operates (bear with me, little children, Uncle Tyrant-Killer will walk you through it): (1) All cases of Constitutional interpretation divide into Judicial-type and Political-type; (2) which type a given case falls into is NOT decided by any theory of judges [see Madison's Notes on the Convention of 1787] but by operation of mutual checks and balances; that is, (3) EITHER the Supreme Court (on appeal) OR the Court of Impeachment (the Senate) have jurisdiction over [right to judge] every person accused of wrongdoing; the jurisdictions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, meaning (5) unless the Senate strip it away, every holder of a Constitution-created office (Presidents & Congressmen) ALWAYS enjoys "Sovereign Immunity" from judges, so that they may be judged guilty by the Supreme Court ["SCourt"] for NONE of their official acts, although the SCourt MAY nullify some [see below]; therefore (6) the SCourt's ruling is a nullity in Marbury v. Madison, where John Marshall, claiming power to arbitrate the other two Branches' powers, pretended to operational supremacism over his co-equal and co-ordinate ("equal-ranking") fellow Branches. (7) Judicial activists rant that without Marbury the SCourt cannot defend liberty against the other Branches, which ignores that (a) the SCourt may itself jeopardize liberty; (b) the Framers DESIGNED the SCourt to be (in their own words) the "weakest" Branch, NOT the strongest as supremacism necessitates; and (c) Common Law already gives judges, States and people collectively sufficient means of defending liberty against the Executive and Legislative. To prove (c) let's get clear how the Framers designed the Constitution to OPERATE to vindicate the liberty of persons lacking Federal Sovereign Immunity (i.e. States and people): (8) LIBERTY EQUALS INNOCENCE -- persons found guilty may legitimately have their life, liberty and/or property taken away; therefore, liberty depends on SOMEONE in authority finding you innocent. (9) The Framers granted (or left intact) to each Branch UNILATERAL powers to find innocence, to wit: (a) the Presidential PARDON nullifies both SCourt rulings and Acts of Congress [see Jefferson's blanket pardon of persons convicted under the Alien & Sedition Acts ruled Constitutional by John Marshall's SCourt]; (b) common-law judges' invocation of HABEAS CORPUS may nullify both Legislative enactments and Executive prosecutions; and (c) Congress may immunize persons retroactively against both Executive prosecution and Judicial conviction with a BILL OF INDEMNITY -- a prerogative of Parliament left intact by Madison's affirmation that the Constitution incorporates Common Law. It follows that (10) the Framers made guilt OPERATIONALLY more difficult to find than innocence, meaning illiberty more difficult to arrange than liberty: -- Federal defendants can't be guilty unless ALL THREE Branches agree; the same defendants are innocent if ANY ONE Branch disagrees. Necessarily implied is that (11) the SCourt has NO POWER TO OVERRIDE PRESIDENTIAL OR CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS OF INNOCENCE -- including the innocence of States -- Marbury notwithstanding. How then to scotch judicial activism and supremacism? Simple: (12) single-handedly the President can (a) PARDON THE STATES whose laws were made guilty ("struck down") by the SCourt, restoring into force (i) Texas's sodomy law or (ii) Washington State's term-limit law, but not necessarily (iii) Alabama's segregation laws IF HE AGREES on Alabama's guilt [he'll lose re-election if he doesn't]; (b) announce he will SIMPLY IGNORE all past, present and future SCourt rulings arbitrating his or Congress's powers, proceeding to enforce (i) the Legislative Veto Act and (ii) the Line-Item Veto Act, for examples, both of which are settlements between Congress and President like the War Powers Act, and none of the SCourt's business. NEVERTHELESS, (13) the SCourt may nullify as many Executive and Legislative acts as it pleases, so long as its nullifications consist of FINDING THE FEDERAL DEFENDANT INNOCENT, otherwise the SCourt has NO power to nullify anything. (Think, you stupid wrong-wingers, THINK: a Line-Item Veto and a Legislative Veto find nobody guilty, they check and balance the legislative process, either neutrally -- a Line-Item Veto nullifies spending, -- or else IN FAVOR OF INNOCENCE -- a Legislative Veto finds States and people innocent whom unelected Federal bureaucrats would have found guilty.) So what happens if a Branch plays "hard ball"? -- the SCourt orders the President's arrest? or the President defies a writ of habeas corpus and keeps a man jailed? The Framers did not make the contest equal if carried to an extreme: the President can send in the Marines and shoot the SCourt. He ought to shoot the Federal Marshalls: it's unconstitutional for the SCourt to wield ANY Executive power, because (14) enforcement of SCourt rulings was DESIGNED to hinge operationally on the President's agreement. The Framers provided that President and Congress may suspend habeas corpus, too. The SCourt's weakness, which the Framers designed, entails by design that (15) the States and people must have a hand in saying what the Constitution means, by electing and un-electing Presidents and Congressmen, or by taking up arms against usurpations. It follows (16) the Constitution's meaning was designed to be THE issue in every Federal election. Some people say the Constitution should be kept away from that Great Evil, "politics". The same brain-dead flatliners, too stupid to perceive their own contradiction, worship "democracy" as the Great Good! They should be forced to break rocks in the Gulag until they disprove this: (a) "Man is the political animal" [Aristotle]; therefore, (b) if politics is bad, then man is bad. Judicial supremacist usurpation has become so brazen that today THE ONLY social force supporting it is a monopolistic, viciously partisan media, and their mind-slaves those Democrats who are also Fascist wrong-wingers. Their demise is only a matter of time.

Bork writes on page 104 that "Vriend is worth a closer look." He should follow his own advice because he misstates the legal issue surrounding the case. Not surprising that this radical avoided solid research. I advise readers to access primary sources instead of swallowing second-hand interpretations. Too much work? Well, that plays well into any idealogue's hand, doesn't it?!

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 19 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

5.0 out of 5 stars Condemning Exposure of Court That Spins Constitution
Bork is a precise legal surgeon. He slices the body politic open to expose the spreading cancer of judicial activism. Read more

Published on Mar 18 2004 by rodboomboom

5.0 out of 5 stars Bork Speaks for Freedom
This is a very important book. In it you will find exposed the horrendous harm that activist judges have imposed and continue to impose on our free Republic. Read more

Published on Mar 12 2004 by Moses Sevens from The Magnifi...

4.0 out of 5 stars A little disappointing, but on whole a good book
This book is sketchy on the details of the history of judicial activism, focusing more on recent outrages in the United States, Canada, and Israel. Read more

Published on Feb 10 2004 by Suppresst

4.0 out of 5 stars One Court, one vote.......
Robert Bork's thesis is that "the rule of law has become confused with -- indeed subverted by -- by the rule of judges. Read more

Published on Jan 15 2004 by Gary C. Marfin

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Topic, but a little Thin
On what basis does the U.S. Supreme Court decide the constitutionality of laws on abortion, homosexuality, religion, and other cultural issues? Read more

Published on Dec 21 2003 by Jeffery Steele

5.0 out of 5 stars A Sobering Look At Our Nation's Judiciary
Although America's constitutional courts' usurpation of political power does not yet match that in Israel or even Canada, Bork's expose of judicial misconduct is a sobering look... Read more

Published on Dec 7 2003

1.0 out of 5 stars One of the things I thank God for in my prayers.
I pray to God. One thing I always thank Him for is denying Bork the position on the Supreme Court that he was nominated for, which would have been a disaster for America... Read more

Published on Dec 6 2003

4.0 out of 5 stars A sobering analysis of judicial activism
Judge Bork knows first-hand just how politicized the judicial branch of government has become. He is, after all, the source of the new word "bork" - meaning "to... Read more

Published on Nov 20 2003 by Mark E. Baxter

5.0 out of 5 stars A wake-up call to the very real danger of losing liberty
Former U.S. solicitor general Robert H. Bork criticizes the expanding power of judicial activism in the United States, Canada, and Israel in Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule Of... Read more

Published on Nov 6 2003 by Midwest Book Review

3.0 out of 5 stars Yes, out of control courts are a worry but...
This review is going to feel dated fairly quickly fellow amazon readers. Forgive me.

Remember a few weeks past when a Federal court said the "telemarketer no call... Read more

Published on Oct 14 2003 by William A. Hensler

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 19 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!