Changes

Under judicial supremacy, the courts seize power for themselves to have the final say over issues of policy up to and including the creation of policy, instead of policy makers or even the voting public, as courts impose their own view utilizing the doctrine a [[Living Constitution]].<ref name=constituting>[http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/thursday-may-30-2013-essay-74-woodrow-wilsons-what-is-progress-guest-essayist-robert-clinton/ "What is Progress?" by Woodrow Wilson – Guest Essayist: Robert Clinton, Professor and Chair Emeritus, Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale]</ref>  In this light, judicial supremacy amounts to grabbing power by one branch of government to positively create law.

Under judicial supremacy, the courts seize power for themselves to have the final say over issues of policy up to and including the creation of policy, instead of policy makers or even the voting public, as courts impose their own view utilizing the doctrine a [[Living Constitution]].<ref name=constituting>[http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/thursday-may-30-2013-essay-74-woodrow-wilsons-what-is-progress-guest-essayist-robert-clinton/ "What is Progress?" by Woodrow Wilson – Guest Essayist: Robert Clinton, Professor and Chair Emeritus, Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale]</ref>  In this light, judicial supremacy amounts to grabbing power by one branch of government to positively create law.

Under judicial supremacy, the branches of government are not co-equal.  Instead, under judicial supremacy, courts are above checks and balances by other branches of government.  This subverts the Constitutional [[Separation of Powers]] that exists to prevent the rise of tyrannical government.  Numerous American statesmen have rejected judicial supremacy, including Presidents [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Andrew Jackson]], [[Abraham Lincoln]], and [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].  Also, [[Alexander Hamilton]] completely rejected judicial supremacy in [[Federalist No. 78]].  President Jackson's famous quip against judicial supremacy was his response to an overreaching [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision written by Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]: Chief Justice "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Under judicial supremacy, the branches of government are not co-equal.  Instead, under judicial supremacy, courts are above checks and balances by other branches of government.  This subverts the Constitutional [[Separation of Powers]] that exists to prevent the rise of tyrannical government.  Numerous American statesmen have rejected judicial supremacy, including Presidents [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Andrew Jackson]], [[Abraham Lincoln]], and [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].  Also, [[Alexander Hamilton]] completely rejected judicial supremacy in [[Federalist No. 78]].  President Jackson's famous quip against judicial supremacy was his response to an overreaching [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision written by Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Judicial supremacy is a concept broader than [[judicial activism]], in that judicial supremacy is a mistaken belief system adopted by many attorneys, laypersons, and people in all walks of life.  It attaches an inflated significance of the judiciary beyond what is justified.  Judicial activism, meanwhile, relates to how liberals attempt to attain political goals through legal decisions, such as legislating from the bench.  Law schools are bastions of judicial supremacy where all of the professors believe in, while a few law professors may oppose judicial activism.

Judicial supremacy is a concept broader than [[judicial activism]], in that judicial supremacy is a mistaken belief system adopted by many attorneys, laypersons, and people in all walks of life.  It attaches an inflated significance of the judiciary beyond what is justified.  Judicial activism, meanwhile, relates to how liberals attempt to attain political goals through legal decisions, such as legislating from the bench.  Law schools are bastions of judicial supremacy where all of the professors believe in, while a few law professors may oppose judicial activism.