Judicial Activism, real or perceived, has become one of the major hot-button issues of the past few years, all the moreso when one takes into account the Democrat's unpreceedented use of filibuster to bottle up several of President Bushes' Appellate Court nominees (the federal Appellate Court being considered a stepping stone to a possible Supreme Court nomination).

Mark Levin, frequent Fox News contributor, makes a very strong case that the Judiciary has elevated itself above both the Executive and Legislative branches of the US Government, rather than its Consitutionally-mandated state of co-equalness. He argues that the Supreme Court (hereafterward referred to as "SCOTUS") has gradually- but especially post-New Deal- moved from interpreting the Constitution (so-called "Constructionists" or "Originalists") to imposing their own views by Judicial fiat with little or not basis or, indeed, reference to the Constitution, and how this transformation of the SCOTUS endangers the United States.

Levin points out that several SCOTUS judges have not exactly been the best of the best, as one should expect from the nation's highest court. In fact, several past Justices almost certainly should never been appointed and/or should've retired long before they ultimately did. Even though Levin cherry-picks the worst of the lot, he does point out that some of these Justices were fallable people and not possessive of god-like wisdom.

Where the book excels are in the chapters where Levin describes what decisions SCOTUS made in several key cases argued before it and how a 'traditional' or 'Constructionist' opinion might've totally changed the path of history. He then goes on to attempt to explain the consequences of what might've been had the Justices decided differently versus what did happen as a result of the Justices deciding as they did. While engaging in "What-Ifs" are highly speculative by nature, Levin's background gives him an insight that perhaps others do not have and allows his speculation to come across as being significantly more plausible.

Of course, Levin may be accused of 'preaching to the choir' because his arguments aren't likely to change your mind if you do not agree either that the SCOTUS engages in Judicial Activism or if you are in favor of such Activism. If you agree with him (as I do), then his words merely reinforce your opinion. I think this is the weakness of many such books in general and this one in particular.

Judges who don't follow the party line and support right wing causes are bad. Judges who say create new precedents that only apply to one case, say one that gives Bush the White House are good. Actually that's not quite fair this guy isn't quite that pathetic a hack but neither is he particularly convincing. What is most noticeable to me about this book is how far to the right these guys have moved the playing field, in this new conservative fever Republican judges who haven't swallowed all the kool-aid are to use Pat Robertson's words worse than the 9/11 terrorists. As for the "strict-constructivism" con, that's been threadbare for twenty years since you never hear a whine about judical activism that supports right wing agendas. Frankly I'd rather read Hannity at least his intellectual pretensions are more of a giggle.

It's hard to take seriously a book about the Supreme Court that is titled "Men in Black" when in fact two of the members of the court are female. Unfortunately, the quality of Mark R. Levin's book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, doesn't improve much after the title.

Levin's book provides the intellectual underpinnings (such as they are), the rationale, the facts, and the agenda of those who want to pack the federal courts with right-wing judges. Part of that agenda is adopting the "nuclear option," ending senators' rights to filibuster against judicial nominees, in order to clear the way for George Bush to name the most conservative judges he can find.

Rather than true scholarship, Levin relies on conservative code words designed to rile the faithful: "radicals in robes," "activist judges," "judicial tyranny," and so on. His goal is to remind conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, of every court ruling they despise (Pledge of Allegiance, Roe vs. Wade, gay marriage, etc.) in order to rally their support for a plan to severely weaken the third branch of government.

Rather than "activists," Levin says, judges should be "originalists," who would interpret the constitution according to what the framers of the constitution intended. For Levin, the constitution has a fixed meaning, fixed within the context of the time in which it was written - the good old days of the late eighteenth century, when men were men, most blacks were slaves, women didn't matter outside the home, and the only internet was the string on Ben Franklin's kite.

What Levin pushes for is a judiciary that, rather than being a branch of government equal to the legislative and the executive, is only half a branch. The high court would lose its power to review the constitutionality of laws because Levin says the founders never expressly gave it that power. Without judicial review, no power would exist to stop Congress from passing laws that in effect repealed the bill of rights. The judicial check on the power of the other two branches would go the way of quill pens and powdered wigs.

What the framers intended, of course, was everything that is on the right-wing's political agenda and nothing that is on liberals' priority list. Gone would be the right to privacy (the basis for rulings permitting abortion, consensual sex among people of the same sex, even the sale of contraceptives) since the bill of rights does not list a right to privacy. On the other hand, government would be free to mandate religious speech in public schools or to give tax money to church schools in the name of school choice because, according to Levin, the Declaration of Independence mentions God so the founders must have meant it was OK to pray in school.

A constitutional lawyer as well as conservative talk radio host, Levin tries to give his work a scholarly shine by using footnotes, but his footnotes are so much window-dressing. He sometimes footnotes several individual words in one sentence to make his work look more respectable. He confines his sources to people at conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute. He fails to provide proper context for Democratic use of the filibuster against a few Bush judicial nominees by ignoring Republican rejection of President Clinton's nominees. He plays fast and loose with quotations, saying George Washington called for a national prayer "to God," when Washington's actual words were to "a great and glorious Being."

Levin undermines his own argument along the way. Levin's first chapter is a rogue's gallery of senile, incompetent, or allegedly corrupt judges seemingly included to make the point that judges are fallible. By pointing out throughout the book that judges are unelected and hold office for life unless impeached for misconduct, however, Levin inadvertently makes the case that judges should receive maximum scrutiny from the Senate and that senators unhappy with a presidential nominee should be able to block it indefinitely until someone better is nominated.

He also loses ground by being so inconsistent in the application of his belief in a limited role for the judiciary. Although he thinks judges are guilty of judicial tyranny, Levin defends the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore that stopped the counting of Florida ballots. He says the Republican court was only trying to rein in a "rogue" Florida court, not put George Bush in the White House. Levin says the court didn't need to get involved at all because the Republican Legislature in Florida could just have named Bush the winner. In what must be a sign of dyslexia, Levin titled the chapter on the Florida recount, "The Courts Count the Ballots." Except, the court said, "Don't Count the Ballots." (Another dyslexic chapter title is "Liberals Stack the Bench." Democrats have held the presidency eight years out of the last twenty-five and somehow they're stacking the courts?)

The far right has done a good job of picking up Levin's arguments. Albert Mohler, one of the promoters of Justice Sunday, and James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, have adopted Levin's vocabulary, using words such as "activist judge" and "judicial tyranny." Dobson has called Justice Anthony Kennedy "one of the most dangerous men in America, if not the most dangerous man in America" because of the rulings Levin cited. Both Mohler and Dobson frame the filibuster issue in terms of "blocking people of faith" from judgeships, following Levin's discussion of blocking of a conservative Catholic judicial nominee.

Although it is a nice crib sheet for right-wing idealogues, Men in Black is still junk scholarship.

Having knocked on the front door and waited in line to get into this great republic and in order to become a citizen, had to swear to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic and also swear to take up arms against
anyone or institution that would attack these foundations..
I find that Mr Levins book comforting and encouraging a breath of fresh air. A book that outlines Historical, legal and logical
arguments is a great asset to Civics education.
It is indeed ironic that new citizens who must undergo a civics test while listening to critics who say that the Plain English version of our beloved constitution and bill of rights are
too extreem.( whilst bastardizing the 1st, infringing the 2nd and
hiding behind the 5th)

This book really nails it. The author makes his arguments in clear, concise and cogent terms. The is a most important book that will both inform and enlighten its readers. I highly recommend it for anyone who is concerned with the direction that the courts are taking this country!!!!