Legal Issues

Men in Black How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America is a book which was authored by Mark Levin in 2005. The introduction of the book was written by Rush Limbaugh. Levin book was meant for people who actually want to understand the power grab and the constitution by the very institution which has been given the mandate and responsibility of interpreting it i.e. the Supreme Court. Levin is a conservative radio host and a frequent National Review contributor as well as a lawyer. He is also the president of Landmark Legal Foundation. He has authored many articles which have been published and have appeared on scores of radio and television programs. The objective of the author is to show the reader how the Supreme Court has made laws in the name of interpreting them. He also want to show the disparities that there are in the supreme court and how they have changed what the founding fathers of America dreamt for it because of their own personal and moral philosophies.

This book surveys a broad political landscape which has come to be littered with the handiwork of justices who have already forgotten their constitutional place. The author in this book has illustrated how the Supreme Court has gone beyond peoples right of privacy in sexual matters and has also interfered with laws of everything from restricting child pornography to immigration to war on terror. The most helpful chapters are those that the author has illustrated about Bush vs. Gore and why what the Supreme Court did should never be repeated again.

In his book he comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court. He accuses the Supreme Court of corrupting the ideals which were laid by America founding fathers. In his estimation he argues that the court pursues an activist agenda which is ideology based and thus they overstep their authority within the government. In order to support his view he examines several decisions that the court has made its history for instance the Marbury vs. Madison case in 1803 and Roe vs. Wade in 1973. The author has also devoted several chapters in key cases which have been culminating in modern issues such as the McCain- Feingold campaign reform bill and same sex marriage.

The author argues that the constitution is under siege by judicial activists who are obsessed on remaking America to reflect their moral and personal political philosophies. He argues that the liberal judges who see the constitution as a document which evolves with time are at odds with the Americas founding fathers vision of what they wanted the federal government to be. He refers to them as activist judges who make instead of interpreting the law. In his book Levin advocates for originalism, legal philosophy which is conservative hinging on a narrow interpretation of the constitutions text. He also contends that by moving judiciary to its original fold could thwart the power grab by radicals in the robe.

The author has also blasted affirmative action decisions. For instance he contends that the 14th Amendments equal protection clause should be sufficient enough to help combat all types of racial discrimination. Levin can be described as ardent advocate but his tone which is strident at times gets in the way of objective analyses of the systems flaws. Levin arguments sometimes hinder one from seeing the objective side of the story and thus one end up seeing it in a blurred vision thus hindering objectivity. The lasting contribution for this book is its commitment constitutionalism other than conservatism. It advocates for the right use of the constitution. What one cannot be able to tell is whether the founders will be appalled by the present Supreme Court as illustrated by Levin. What one can tell is that critics who are likeminded are likely to be galvanized by this call which has been documented by a conservatist.

Every book has its own strengths and shortcomings and thus Levins book does not surpass this. Like many attorneys would do, Levin did a thorough research on the issues that he writes about in his book and he therefore delivers his points with tremendous vigor. He excoriates the justices in instances he feels that strict constitutional constructivism gave away interpretation which was biased. There is no single point that is not illustrated with ample information. The problem with the book is that the definition of activism is inconsistent. For instance in the case of McCain-Feingold the court declined to rule on a bill which had already been passed by the congress and signed by the president. According to Levin the bill had violated the First Amendment but he still accuses them of activism even when they are passive.

Men in Black How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America by Levin has changed my way of thinking. I always thought that the courts are places where justice is adhered to in the correct form without biases. But after reading this book I have been able to understand how the Supreme Court carries out its responsibility. Sometimes it is filled with a lot of bias. Some times they have tried to interpret the law but instead of doing so they end up making other laws and thus end up making the wrong decisions in some cases. Most of the time is because they are led by their own political and moral standards.  I therefore tend to agree with Levin that originalism should be maintained and also the conservative interpretation of the constitution should also be maintained. The book has also shown how court imports laws from other countries so that they can be able to win the culture of the extremists.

This book can be described as a great read which helps the reader to have an excellent picture of the history of Supreme Court and the various supreme judges who presided over the court in the past. Whether one is liberal or conservative it is hard for the person to disagree with the points that the author has put across in this book. The book flows from the beginning to the end. The book is able to catch the attention of the reader and makes him or her to want to read more. The ideas are well interconnected and thus understanding it is very easy. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand clearly about the Supreme Court and their responsibility and so far how they have violated or overstepped their mandate.

In conclusion one can say that the court has failed in their proper role to balance and check the legislature and executive branches. Even though this book is about the judiciary we should not rail on activist judges but we should rail on against the legislature and the executives because they have failed in their duties to check and balance each other.