What do you think?
Rate this book
Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America
"A modern conservative classic." - Sean Hannity
"Men in Black couldn’t be more timely or important….a tremendously important and compelling book.” - Rush Limbaugh
“One of the finest books on the Constitution and the judiciary I’ve read in a long time….There is no better source for understanding and grasping the seriousness of this issue.” - Edwin Meese III
“The Supreme Court has broken through the firewalls constructed by the framers to limit judicial power.”
“America’s founding fathers had a clear and profound vision for what they wanted our federal government to be,” says constitutional scholar Mark R. Levin in his explosive book, Men in Black. “But today, our out-of-control Supreme Court imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones to suit its own liberal whims––robbing us of our basic freedoms and the values on which our country was founded.”
In Men in How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, Levin exposes countless examples of outrageous Supreme Court abuses, from promoting racism in college admissions, expelling God and religion from the public square, forcing states to confer benefits on illegal aliens, and endorsing economic socialism to upholding partial-birth abortion, restraining political speech, and anointing terrorists with rights.
Levin “Barely one hundred justices have served on the United States Supreme Court. They’re unelected, they’re virtually unaccountable, they’re largely unknown to most Americans, and they serve for life…in many ways the justices are more powerful than members of Congress and the president.… As few as five justices can and do dictate economic, cultural, criminal, and security policy for the entire nation.”
In Men in Black, you will
How the Supreme Court protects virtual child pornography and flag burning as forms of free speech but denies teenagers the right to hear an invocation mentioning God at a high school graduation ceremony because it might be “coercive.” How a former Klansman and virulently anti-Catholic Supreme Court justice inserted the words “wall of separation” between church and state in a 1947 Supreme Court decision––a phrase repeated today by those who claim to stand for civil liberty. How Justice Harry Blackmun, a one-time conservative appointee and the author of Roe v. Wade, was influenced by fan mail much like an entertainer or politician, which helped him to evolve into an ardent activist for gay rights and against the death penalty. How the Supreme Court has dictated that illegal aliens have a constitutional right to attend public schools, and that other immigrants qualify for welfare benefits, tuition assistance, and even civil service jobs.
"Men in Black couldn’t be more timely or important….a tremendously important and compelling book.” - Rush Limbaugh
“One of the finest books on the Constitution and the judiciary I’ve read in a long time….There is no better source for understanding and grasping the seriousness of this issue.” - Edwin Meese III
“The Supreme Court has broken through the firewalls constructed by the framers to limit judicial power.”
“America’s founding fathers had a clear and profound vision for what they wanted our federal government to be,” says constitutional scholar Mark R. Levin in his explosive book, Men in Black. “But today, our out-of-control Supreme Court imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones to suit its own liberal whims––robbing us of our basic freedoms and the values on which our country was founded.”
In Men in How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, Levin exposes countless examples of outrageous Supreme Court abuses, from promoting racism in college admissions, expelling God and religion from the public square, forcing states to confer benefits on illegal aliens, and endorsing economic socialism to upholding partial-birth abortion, restraining political speech, and anointing terrorists with rights.
Levin “Barely one hundred justices have served on the United States Supreme Court. They’re unelected, they’re virtually unaccountable, they’re largely unknown to most Americans, and they serve for life…in many ways the justices are more powerful than members of Congress and the president.… As few as five justices can and do dictate economic, cultural, criminal, and security policy for the entire nation.”
In Men in Black, you will
How the Supreme Court protects virtual child pornography and flag burning as forms of free speech but denies teenagers the right to hear an invocation mentioning God at a high school graduation ceremony because it might be “coercive.” How a former Klansman and virulently anti-Catholic Supreme Court justice inserted the words “wall of separation” between church and state in a 1947 Supreme Court decision––a phrase repeated today by those who claim to stand for civil liberty. How Justice Harry Blackmun, a one-time conservative appointee and the author of Roe v. Wade, was influenced by fan mail much like an entertainer or politician, which helped him to evolve into an ardent activist for gay rights and against the death penalty. How the Supreme Court has dictated that illegal aliens have a constitutional right to attend public schools, and that other immigrants qualify for welfare benefits, tuition assistance, and even civil service jobs.
256 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 6, 2005
197 people are currently reading
1754 people want to read
About the author
Mark R. Levin
26 books739 followersMark Levin has become one of the hottest properties in Talk radio, his top-rated show on WABC New York is now syndicated nationally by Cumulus Media. He is also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena. Mark's radio show on WABC in New York City skyrocketed to Number 1 on the AM dial in his first 18 months on the air in the competitive 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM time slot. Mark's book Men in Black was released February 7, 2005 and quickly climbed to Number 3 in the nation on the New York Times Best-Seller list. When your book is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you know you have a winner on your hands. In a short period of time, Mark has become one of the most listened to local radio Talk show hosts in the nation.
Mark Levin took over the WABC 6:00 PM slot on September 2, 2003. Before that, he hosted a popular Sunday afternoon program. "He's smart, witty, and fast on the draw," according to WABC Program Director Phil Boyce. "He has this sharp sarcastic wit that can easily stun his opponents. I know I would not want to debate him." Mark's show follows the ever popular Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on WABC, but everyday he manages to come up with a new twist on the day's top news events, as well as his own unique information. His passion and intellect have made him a favorite of tens of thousands of radio listeners in the New York City area.
Mark has been a frequent guest and substitute host on The Sean Hannity Show, and has also been an advisor to Limbaugh, who frequently refers to him on the air with the nickname "F. Lee Levin." He is perhaps more well-known for his nickname, "The Great One," coined by his friend Hannity.
Mark Levin is one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He's in great demand as a political and legal commentator, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications. Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet - including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.
Source: http://marklevinshow.com/article.asp?...
Mark Levin took over the WABC 6:00 PM slot on September 2, 2003. Before that, he hosted a popular Sunday afternoon program. "He's smart, witty, and fast on the draw," according to WABC Program Director Phil Boyce. "He has this sharp sarcastic wit that can easily stun his opponents. I know I would not want to debate him." Mark's show follows the ever popular Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on WABC, but everyday he manages to come up with a new twist on the day's top news events, as well as his own unique information. His passion and intellect have made him a favorite of tens of thousands of radio listeners in the New York City area.
Mark has been a frequent guest and substitute host on The Sean Hannity Show, and has also been an advisor to Limbaugh, who frequently refers to him on the air with the nickname "F. Lee Levin." He is perhaps more well-known for his nickname, "The Great One," coined by his friend Hannity.
Mark Levin is one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He's in great demand as a political and legal commentator, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications. Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet - including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.
Source: http://marklevinshow.com/article.asp?...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews
May 22, 2010
There are about a billion books out there about the conservative approach to constitutional law that are more scholarly and/or even-tempered, but this one is the most direct, succinct and comprehensible for the lay reader. Some of the issues presented (abortion, first amendment) might be familiar, since they are the ones that receive a lot of popular attention; but Levin's discussions about more esoteric matters (commerce clause, privacy, filibuster) that make this book valuable. The sad fact is that constitutional law has become so complex and so removed from the original understanding of the constitution that you literally need to go to law school to learn about legal theories that underlie so much of the modern American state. Even if you are not conservative, or even not very political, you can learn a lot from this book.
July 11, 2008
Mark Levin's book falls into some of the usual pitfalls that almost all biased political argumentation today falls into--evidence is often stretched and recontextualized to fit certain predisposed conclusions. The book is clearly well researched, and Levin is no doubt quite knowledgeable about legal process and the language of the US Constitution, but his conclusions are often stretched to a degree that no longer fits the evidence. I would hesitate comparing his method to a smokescreen, for I am not entirely sure if Levin is purposefully making exaggerated claims that he doesn't support but artfully disguises in the ethos of research, but at the core of many of his ideas are assumptions or basic contradictions that he just can't back up.
For example, Levin is trying to show with this book that there is a long-term conspiracy of liberalism that has been slowly forging opportunities for itself in the process of applying the Constitution to the cases before it so that there would be precedent to back what Levin calls unConstitutional decisions like in Roe vs. Wade. Levin pushes a good case to look further (personally) into the basis of that and other decisions and if they do have Constitutional basis, but Levin instead goes into a history lesson of the decisions that predicated decisions like Roe vs. Wade with the assumption that every opportunity opened in previous decisions regarding things like the right to privacy was in fact the doing of a long-term liberal plan to open the doors of power for an activist court. Certainly, legal cases are often made on the grounds of precedent, but instead of revealing the focus on precedent rather than the Constitution as a problem in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, Levin tries to turn the problem into an unsupportable conspiracy that comes across on the edge of paranoia rather than sound, unbiased reason. And when Levin starts out the book stating that the justices should be treated as humans rather than gods, he wants to convey the idea that their actions may be questioned, but will not acknowledge himself that the history of precedents may also be the mistakes of the same human beings whom he does not want us to deify.
Levin also breaks his guise of the the reasonable viewer of history when he tries to establish the intents of the founding fathers, equating Jefferson's participation in prayer services at Congress as a direct negation of his over-used mention of the wall of separation. Clearly, Levin cannot see no possible correlation between the two, and thus the questioning of the validity of prayer in schools must be a moot argument. Just to make sure that his bias is clear, he throws in a little slippery scare tactic of suggesting a future where religious observance is also banned in the home.
Levin makes the same kind of rhetorical blunders when he suggests that Blackmun may have turned 'left' under the influence of his wife (while giving a little shot in the arm to Richard Nixon for having the foresight of wanting to base a Supreme Court nomination partly on the quality of a man's wife). When discussing the famous argument over the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, Levin focuses more on how much the plaintiff's daughter actually wanted to say the phrase, which is of course moot when considering the actual legitimacy of requiring the phrase in a patriotic statement.
In the end, this book comes across as yet another argument of bias in what has clearly become a divisive popular culture--evidently, a book isn't commercially viable unless it has a line to hold, no matter which side.
For example, Levin is trying to show with this book that there is a long-term conspiracy of liberalism that has been slowly forging opportunities for itself in the process of applying the Constitution to the cases before it so that there would be precedent to back what Levin calls unConstitutional decisions like in Roe vs. Wade. Levin pushes a good case to look further (personally) into the basis of that and other decisions and if they do have Constitutional basis, but Levin instead goes into a history lesson of the decisions that predicated decisions like Roe vs. Wade with the assumption that every opportunity opened in previous decisions regarding things like the right to privacy was in fact the doing of a long-term liberal plan to open the doors of power for an activist court. Certainly, legal cases are often made on the grounds of precedent, but instead of revealing the focus on precedent rather than the Constitution as a problem in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, Levin tries to turn the problem into an unsupportable conspiracy that comes across on the edge of paranoia rather than sound, unbiased reason. And when Levin starts out the book stating that the justices should be treated as humans rather than gods, he wants to convey the idea that their actions may be questioned, but will not acknowledge himself that the history of precedents may also be the mistakes of the same human beings whom he does not want us to deify.
Levin also breaks his guise of the the reasonable viewer of history when he tries to establish the intents of the founding fathers, equating Jefferson's participation in prayer services at Congress as a direct negation of his over-used mention of the wall of separation. Clearly, Levin cannot see no possible correlation between the two, and thus the questioning of the validity of prayer in schools must be a moot argument. Just to make sure that his bias is clear, he throws in a little slippery scare tactic of suggesting a future where religious observance is also banned in the home.
Levin makes the same kind of rhetorical blunders when he suggests that Blackmun may have turned 'left' under the influence of his wife (while giving a little shot in the arm to Richard Nixon for having the foresight of wanting to base a Supreme Court nomination partly on the quality of a man's wife). When discussing the famous argument over the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, Levin focuses more on how much the plaintiff's daughter actually wanted to say the phrase, which is of course moot when considering the actual legitimacy of requiring the phrase in a patriotic statement.
In the end, this book comes across as yet another argument of bias in what has clearly become a divisive popular culture--evidently, a book isn't commercially viable unless it has a line to hold, no matter which side.
September 5, 2022
What a difference a few years can make.
Republicans had been talking about how the Supreme Court was getting too big for its britches for some years. The republican congress even took some legislative action called "court stripping" to re-take jurisdiction from the courts on some matters. Liberals stridently disagreed...until this year.
The book starts with some capsule biographies about how some Supreme Court justices were ill, infirm, and occasionally just insane, yet refused to give up their seats, and still made important decisions affecting the entire country. It made me wonder about Ginsberg's health the last few years before her death.
The Levin examines Marbury versus Madison, which is the decision that outlined the role the court would take in the future. Actually a political ploy, that one decision gave the courts power they never should have possessed.
From there Levin shows how the court aggrandized power, and taken on a role it was never meant to play.
More relevant now than ever.
Republicans had been talking about how the Supreme Court was getting too big for its britches for some years. The republican congress even took some legislative action called "court stripping" to re-take jurisdiction from the courts on some matters. Liberals stridently disagreed...until this year.
The book starts with some capsule biographies about how some Supreme Court justices were ill, infirm, and occasionally just insane, yet refused to give up their seats, and still made important decisions affecting the entire country. It made me wonder about Ginsberg's health the last few years before her death.
The Levin examines Marbury versus Madison, which is the decision that outlined the role the court would take in the future. Actually a political ploy, that one decision gave the courts power they never should have possessed.
From there Levin shows how the court aggrandized power, and taken on a role it was never meant to play.
More relevant now than ever.
April 24, 2008
When I earned my degree in Political Science, one of the most interesting courses I took was in Constitutional Law. I've also read widely about the framing of the Constitution and the early history of our nation. This NY Times Best Seller lived up to all the hype I heard about it. Mr Levin, aReagan-era appointee, radio-talk-show host and Constitutional Law expert succinctly describes how the Supreme Court has taken unto itself unprecedented power to legislate from the bench. Having just viewed the "John Adams" miniseries on HBO, which shows how the framers of the Constitution sought to carefully craft the responsibilities, duties, and powers of the three separate branches of our government, I am struck by how far the court has deviated from those tenets. I was surprised -- though I should not have been -- by Mr Levin's expose regarding the systematic abuse of the Senate's Advise-and-Consent Role and the behind-the-scenes manipulations of self-serving liberal interest groups. A bonus feature was a chapter describing the Florida "Hanging Chad" issue that tore our republic apart in the last Presidential election. Mr. Levin clearly outlines the applicable law involved, the abuses that occurred, and how it poses evolving and yet unknown dangers for our system of government in the future.
The book is written for laymen and Levin translates complex legal issues into easy-to-understand terms. It is, of course, non-fiction; as a companion read, I suggest "The Appeal" -- John Grisham's latest novel. The lessons of Grisham's fiction are as frightening as Mr. Levin's reality.
The book is written for laymen and Levin translates complex legal issues into easy-to-understand terms. It is, of course, non-fiction; as a companion read, I suggest "The Appeal" -- John Grisham's latest novel. The lessons of Grisham's fiction are as frightening as Mr. Levin's reality.
September 28, 2009
This right-wing rant is the result of shallow reasoning, biased reporting, and disingenuous scholarship. Levin's prejudice and combativeness ruin his effort. He conveniently dismisses all of the Supreme Court's so-called liberal decisions with which he disagrees on ideological grounds as "judicial activism," while ignoring the modern judicial activism of conservatives. In fact, Levin actually fails to mention the greatest judicial activism in American history: When five conservative Republican appointees of the Supreme Court selected George Walker Bush as President of the United States in 2000. Levin's book is a waste of time; and more significantly, it is dangerous because the uninitiated may believe it to be accurate and the result of bona fide legal scholarship. Fortunately, I did not buy this book, but read a copy from my public library.
August 5, 2020
Meh. Although there are excellent observations made, the book has flaws. First, although it talks about principled decisions, it doesn't enumerate any principles. Second, it is biased, excoriating the evil Democrats of Congress, but not the evil Republicans; and obviously considers certain SCOTUS decisions wrong (e.g., Roe v Wade) because they are opposed by the right. Third, there are times when it is just plain boring.
For better books on this subject, see:
Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution's Promise of Limited Government by Clark M. Neily
The Dirty Dozen, by Levy & Mellor
For better books on this subject, see:
Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution's Promise of Limited Government by Clark M. Neily
The Dirty Dozen, by Levy & Mellor
September 11, 2012
Mark Levin is a very angry man.
June 15, 2019
Heavy on legal details but I really enjoyed this book!
January 1, 2017
Well...This was a book. I knew I wouldn't like it because in my gov. class we just talked about how flag burning is constitutional. So it was more of a fun read, one that would make me laugh at how stupid their knowledge of the Constitution is. However, the guy who wrote this knew his stuff. However, it was really boring in the latter parts of the book, it's a really really really extreme viewpoint, and it uses weird language which makes it more confusing.
First off, any book with how (blank) is destroying America is going to be very biased. This book is no exception. The author also twists facts a bit, telling you only the side he wants you to hear. Like when he talks about when the Left stalled judicial appointments. Because the Right hasn't ever done something like that.
Then, in one chapter, Levin quotes someone who uses big words. He then decides it's a good idea to use those big words throughout the chapter, even though he says they are big words!
Also, if your author flat out tells you who he voted for in the 2000 election, then says it wasn't close, you might want to find a new book.
If you are an extreme Conservative who wants to be mad, this is the book for you. If you just want to read about the bad decisions the Supreme Court made, I recommend you find a different book. If you're anything but hardcore Conservative, this book will probably do to you what it did to me.
This book scared me. Not because of what he says but how he says it.
First off, any book with how (blank) is destroying America is going to be very biased. This book is no exception. The author also twists facts a bit, telling you only the side he wants you to hear. Like when he talks about when the Left stalled judicial appointments. Because the Right hasn't ever done something like that.
Then, in one chapter, Levin quotes someone who uses big words. He then decides it's a good idea to use those big words throughout the chapter, even though he says they are big words!
Also, if your author flat out tells you who he voted for in the 2000 election, then says it wasn't close, you might want to find a new book.
If you are an extreme Conservative who wants to be mad, this is the book for you. If you just want to read about the bad decisions the Supreme Court made, I recommend you find a different book. If you're anything but hardcore Conservative, this book will probably do to you what it did to me.
This book scared me. Not because of what he says but how he says it.
November 3, 2011
This book clearly chronicals the systematic over-reach by the judicial branch, detailing the general disregard of the Constitution by the the same branch charged with evaluating the Constitutionality of Federal law.
Of particular historical interest was the efforts of the Supreme Court to uphold slavery in disregard of the 10th amendment and "seperate-but-equal" segregation. Of current interest is the the modern efforts of liberals to use the court as a vehicle to advance goals they are unable to attain through the democratic process.
Such attempts have moved the courts closer to an unelected instrument of tyranny than an impartial body charged with overseeing the Constitutionality of federal legislation.
I appreciated Levin's suggestions for making the Supreme Court more accountable including term limits of 12 years and the idea of limiting the power of judicial review by allowing a legislative veto over court decisions when 2/3 of both houses disapprove.
A Good Reads, good read.
Of particular historical interest was the efforts of the Supreme Court to uphold slavery in disregard of the 10th amendment and "seperate-but-equal" segregation. Of current interest is the the modern efforts of liberals to use the court as a vehicle to advance goals they are unable to attain through the democratic process.
Such attempts have moved the courts closer to an unelected instrument of tyranny than an impartial body charged with overseeing the Constitutionality of federal legislation.
I appreciated Levin's suggestions for making the Supreme Court more accountable including term limits of 12 years and the idea of limiting the power of judicial review by allowing a legislative veto over court decisions when 2/3 of both houses disapprove.
A Good Reads, good read.
June 8, 2015
I gave up on this book after concluding that Levin, while claiming to support legal originalism, doesn't seem to understand how it works in practice. That is, he relies for constitutional guidance on what this or that founder said: any historian would assure him that this approach is about as reliable as tossing coins to pick an outcome. Once the meaning of the document is divorced from giving the words their natural (preferably non-absurd) meaning, one has conceded that a court interpreting it has a license to be utterly self-serving. While I usually wouldn't give up on a book so soon, life is to short to waste time on this sort of dreck.
February 2, 2016
A fantastic look at the history of the men and women who have served, and serve, on the Supreme Court; how they have usurped power from the other branches of government; and how the country is in danger of becoming an oligarchy instead of a constitutional republic. Levine walks us back through history and explains the important cases and how those decisions affect us today. He also makes some thought provoking suggestions on how to constitutionally reign in unelected unaccountable judges.
June 24, 2017
A good overview of the Supreme Court's excesses and absurdities in that past 70 years. Levin is on very shaky ground, though, when he questions whether the Constitution grants courts the power to determine a law's constitutionality.
December 4, 2022
5 stars because I learned so much about the history of the Supreme Court from this book. A lot of the information in here provoked me to do my own research to validate and dig deeper on several topics and I love a book that gets me thinking and learning.
March 30, 2020
I listened to the book on CD at the recommendation of a family member who extolled the sound rhetoric presented by the author.
I couldnt believe how hypocritical the author is in every chapter. The book took me a long time to read as I had to keep pausing to research a topic or claim but more often to review a section to make sure I wasnt imagining his constant flip flopping or moving the goalpost on a principle. He doesn't ever miss the opportunity to inject partisan swipes.
Not knowing who Mark Levin was prior to picking up the book I now imagine he is quite the partisan on his radio show. As I told my family member I enjoyed reading about topics involved to learn more about how our system of government works and it engaged me to think how our system of government should work.
The book can be summed up as: people who agree with my point of view are originalist, smart, and heroic judges who literally follow the constitution. There are these other types of judges known as activists and they are vile, power-hungry liberals and they are unelected officials unaccountable to the people and use their imaginations to create law and they detest the constitution.
There's gratuitous use of word fiat. It is used as a pejorative and I'm sure it is a dog whistle for conservative minded libertarians. The only other time I've heard the word used is amongst libertarians who want to ban the fed and return to the gold standard.
I am saddened by the thought that people may read this book and believe all the misleading opinions presented as facts.
Based on his definition of an activist judge, it is relativistic and anyone is capable of such a definition, so long as they hold a differing opinion than someone else.
I couldnt believe how hypocritical the author is in every chapter. The book took me a long time to read as I had to keep pausing to research a topic or claim but more often to review a section to make sure I wasnt imagining his constant flip flopping or moving the goalpost on a principle. He doesn't ever miss the opportunity to inject partisan swipes.
Not knowing who Mark Levin was prior to picking up the book I now imagine he is quite the partisan on his radio show. As I told my family member I enjoyed reading about topics involved to learn more about how our system of government works and it engaged me to think how our system of government should work.
The book can be summed up as: people who agree with my point of view are originalist, smart, and heroic judges who literally follow the constitution. There are these other types of judges known as activists and they are vile, power-hungry liberals and they are unelected officials unaccountable to the people and use their imaginations to create law and they detest the constitution.
There's gratuitous use of word fiat. It is used as a pejorative and I'm sure it is a dog whistle for conservative minded libertarians. The only other time I've heard the word used is amongst libertarians who want to ban the fed and return to the gold standard.
I am saddened by the thought that people may read this book and believe all the misleading opinions presented as facts.
Based on his definition of an activist judge, it is relativistic and anyone is capable of such a definition, so long as they hold a differing opinion than someone else.
September 19, 2009
Provides an overview of the usual conservative critique of the activist Supreme Court, so it would be a good introduction to people interested in that debate, but I didn't find any new insights or consider it particularly well written.
January 20, 2018
Before reading Mark Levin’s “Men in Black” I was under the assumption that the Constitution of The United States of America was the “guiding document” the Supreme Court used when considering cases before them, but many of the unbelievable stories told in this book indicate that too often this is not the case. Levin tells the tales, in considerable detail of the incidents where the court sidestepped the intent of the Constitution, infringed on the authority of the democratically elected branches of government and took matters into their own hands.
Levin spoke of judicial activism, a term I’d heard before, but never really considered its implications. The author’s position is that the Supreme Court, the only body out of reach of accountability in elections, are not, and cannot be accountable to the people in the same way the Executive and Legislative branches are. Judicial activism places the non-elected, largely unaccountable Supreme Court as legislators with the power to make into law the social agendas they often carry with them when appointed. This has led to many decisions being foisted on the legislative branches, and in turn, the people.
I grew up with the notion that the legislators make the laws and the judicial branch interprets them, using the Constitution as their guide. As I read this book I realized that this was one of those notions that you carry with you until you somehow learn otherwise.
I also came to understand that when the Supreme Court chooses not to “anchor” itself to the Constitution, it becomes “adrift” as it searches for other, less secure, sources of guidance. This, I found out, was the case in the court’s longstanding position that “church and state” should be separated. One can argue for or against this point, but the thing that disturbed me most wasn’t so much that the court took the position that “church and state” should be separated, but more their reasoning for doing so.
The source of the court’s move toward a “separation of church and state” came from a very unusual and obscure place. It was 1947 and Justice Hugo Black, a longtime admirer of former president Thomas Jefferson, used a letter Jefferson once sent as a “precedent” for deciding that church and state should be separate in the case of “Everson v. Board of Education.” After reading the story, I was amazed that Justice Black used the letter at all, since it was merely a “thank you note” from Jefferson, addressed to a Baptist community in Danbury, Connecticut in response to the earlier congratulatory letter they sent him after he won the presidency.
This book was a real eye opener for me as I came to realize how the highest court of the United States has increasingly seized power, arbitrarily and independently making decisions that are normally in the purview of legislators and the executive branch of the states and federal government. The Supreme Court has changed the way things are done in so many areas of public life, including, civil rights, citizenship, terrorism, free speech, elections, and numerous other areas. Many of these decisions were not guided by the intent of the framers of the constitution.
This was a book that needed to be written, and just as importantly, needs to read. I’m pleased to see that Levin chose to write this book in a way that would engage, and hold the interest of the reader. This way it won’t stand in that long line of relevant works that sit on the dusty shelves of academia’s institutions.
We’re talking about the most foundational principles, values and the best of that “grand experiment” we call the United States of America. Very few topics are of equal importance.
Levin spoke of judicial activism, a term I’d heard before, but never really considered its implications. The author’s position is that the Supreme Court, the only body out of reach of accountability in elections, are not, and cannot be accountable to the people in the same way the Executive and Legislative branches are. Judicial activism places the non-elected, largely unaccountable Supreme Court as legislators with the power to make into law the social agendas they often carry with them when appointed. This has led to many decisions being foisted on the legislative branches, and in turn, the people.
I grew up with the notion that the legislators make the laws and the judicial branch interprets them, using the Constitution as their guide. As I read this book I realized that this was one of those notions that you carry with you until you somehow learn otherwise.
I also came to understand that when the Supreme Court chooses not to “anchor” itself to the Constitution, it becomes “adrift” as it searches for other, less secure, sources of guidance. This, I found out, was the case in the court’s longstanding position that “church and state” should be separated. One can argue for or against this point, but the thing that disturbed me most wasn’t so much that the court took the position that “church and state” should be separated, but more their reasoning for doing so.
The source of the court’s move toward a “separation of church and state” came from a very unusual and obscure place. It was 1947 and Justice Hugo Black, a longtime admirer of former president Thomas Jefferson, used a letter Jefferson once sent as a “precedent” for deciding that church and state should be separate in the case of “Everson v. Board of Education.” After reading the story, I was amazed that Justice Black used the letter at all, since it was merely a “thank you note” from Jefferson, addressed to a Baptist community in Danbury, Connecticut in response to the earlier congratulatory letter they sent him after he won the presidency.
This book was a real eye opener for me as I came to realize how the highest court of the United States has increasingly seized power, arbitrarily and independently making decisions that are normally in the purview of legislators and the executive branch of the states and federal government. The Supreme Court has changed the way things are done in so many areas of public life, including, civil rights, citizenship, terrorism, free speech, elections, and numerous other areas. Many of these decisions were not guided by the intent of the framers of the constitution.
This was a book that needed to be written, and just as importantly, needs to read. I’m pleased to see that Levin chose to write this book in a way that would engage, and hold the interest of the reader. This way it won’t stand in that long line of relevant works that sit on the dusty shelves of academia’s institutions.
We’re talking about the most foundational principles, values and the best of that “grand experiment” we call the United States of America. Very few topics are of equal importance.
May 27, 2018
I don't get into politics much because I despise the entire charade. Politics should be about honor and public welfare from an informed and wise perspective. It has instead become little more than a horrible menagerie of petty children squabbling over scraps of power cut from the heart and soul of our national fabric.
I decided to read this book because I have been very confused about the decisions that came out of the Supreme Court. I am not an extreme conservative and have never considered myself very much of a Republican. I normally vote republican as a policy on choosing the lesser of two evils.
This book contained a great deal of evidence of the corruption of the Supreme Court. I would have found the entire book to be excellent if it were not for the choice of the author to continue to make statements that were rather odd and not very well thought out. He would follow excellent arguments concerning the corruptions of the court with statements about how the courts should be be judging the things they were judging. The problem is, who does judge them? You can't have congress and through them the people judging law because that wouldn’t be rule of law but rule of popular opinion. Another problem was that in one chapter he seems to be supporting federalism and in the next democracy. It doesn't work both ways.
This country is a federated democratic republic, not a democracy. There is a huge difference between the two. The people are supposed to be ruled by the counties. The counties are supposed to be ruled by the States. The states are supposed to be regulated, but not exactly ruled by, the federal government. With the courts intrusion into every aspect of social and economic welfare of the people the government has been gradually turning into something much more similar in function, if not name, to the government of the United Kingdom. With the advent of mass market media such as television the danger has been accelerated.
The book is a fairly good low-level overview of the problems in the judicial arm of the Federal government. I recommend the book with a less than pure enthusiasm as the writer could have made the book far better and more wide spread by concentrating his efforts on the problems and letting them speak for themselves instead of interjecting his own views which aren't exactly insightful or well considered (In my own opinion).
I decided to read this book because I have been very confused about the decisions that came out of the Supreme Court. I am not an extreme conservative and have never considered myself very much of a Republican. I normally vote republican as a policy on choosing the lesser of two evils.
This book contained a great deal of evidence of the corruption of the Supreme Court. I would have found the entire book to be excellent if it were not for the choice of the author to continue to make statements that were rather odd and not very well thought out. He would follow excellent arguments concerning the corruptions of the court with statements about how the courts should be be judging the things they were judging. The problem is, who does judge them? You can't have congress and through them the people judging law because that wouldn’t be rule of law but rule of popular opinion. Another problem was that in one chapter he seems to be supporting federalism and in the next democracy. It doesn't work both ways.
This country is a federated democratic republic, not a democracy. There is a huge difference between the two. The people are supposed to be ruled by the counties. The counties are supposed to be ruled by the States. The states are supposed to be regulated, but not exactly ruled by, the federal government. With the courts intrusion into every aspect of social and economic welfare of the people the government has been gradually turning into something much more similar in function, if not name, to the government of the United Kingdom. With the advent of mass market media such as television the danger has been accelerated.
The book is a fairly good low-level overview of the problems in the judicial arm of the Federal government. I recommend the book with a less than pure enthusiasm as the writer could have made the book far better and more wide spread by concentrating his efforts on the problems and letting them speak for themselves instead of interjecting his own views which aren't exactly insightful or well considered (In my own opinion).
August 2, 2022
First published in 2006, this is an incredibly informative book that is perhaps even more relevant given the attention focused on the U.S. Supreme Court in recent months. Mark Levin examines how the highest court in the land has ignored the US constitution time and again even as it has occasionally taken appropriate action to correct mistakes made by previous courts.
Mark Levin approaches the court from an originalist or constitutional point of view. He highlights where the courts have overstepped their constitutional guidelines to set national policy or to draw authority from the legislature and the states. Although Mr. Levin is staunchly conservative, he addresses a range of topics and judicial actions that will interest Americans from both sides of the aisle.
The book is thought provoking and incredibly well researched and documented. I found myself referring to the footnotes many times and jumping to the internet to find additional information. The source documents are available and there is enough background material to fill several more volumes.
I am glad I found this book and read it. I recommend you do the same.
Mark Levin approaches the court from an originalist or constitutional point of view. He highlights where the courts have overstepped their constitutional guidelines to set national policy or to draw authority from the legislature and the states. Although Mr. Levin is staunchly conservative, he addresses a range of topics and judicial actions that will interest Americans from both sides of the aisle.
The book is thought provoking and incredibly well researched and documented. I found myself referring to the footnotes many times and jumping to the internet to find additional information. The source documents are available and there is enough background material to fill several more volumes.
I am glad I found this book and read it. I recommend you do the same.
September 15, 2020
Roe vs Wade (still in danger) and personal privacy issues cases were the most interesting chapters. Earlier decision history--Marbury vs Madison/Dred Scott--have been well chronicled, but are important to the theme of the book, which is against judiciary activism and the court increasing its own power. This book is 15 years old, so many of the issues are fading from memory.
I would recommend this more to hard line conservatives, law students, and constitutional scholars. For the average reader? Not so much. The style is more like an academic paper than journalism or non-fiction for the masses which might leave out every little detail.
Reading level: AP High School, College.
Sample:
"[O'Connor] Race conscious programs must have reasonable durational limits."
I suppose they must.
I would recommend this more to hard line conservatives, law students, and constitutional scholars. For the average reader? Not so much. The style is more like an academic paper than journalism or non-fiction for the masses which might leave out every little detail.
Reading level: AP High School, College.
Sample:
"[O'Connor] Race conscious programs must have reasonable durational limits."
I suppose they must.
February 3, 2023
I am a fan of Mark Levine and his experience in constitutional law really shows throughout this book. Levine goes way back to the beginning of the supreme court to show how some judges were definitely not meant to serve, either being too sick, or just a little wacko.
What I learned from this book is that the supreme court is a very scary place in these days. The original purpose was each judge was supposed to be NON biased, not leaning right or left... they are just to interpret the law. Yet, sadly, judges from both sides choose to legislate from the bench ... which is not the purpose of the court.
Levine brings up some really amazing and high profile cases, such as Roe V Wade (before the overturn) and the 2000 election. So he gives it to both sides and shows how the court is influenced rather than unbiased. Sad. Good read whatever side you chose.
What I learned from this book is that the supreme court is a very scary place in these days. The original purpose was each judge was supposed to be NON biased, not leaning right or left... they are just to interpret the law. Yet, sadly, judges from both sides choose to legislate from the bench ... which is not the purpose of the court.
Levine brings up some really amazing and high profile cases, such as Roe V Wade (before the overturn) and the 2000 election. So he gives it to both sides and shows how the court is influenced rather than unbiased. Sad. Good read whatever side you chose.
September 25, 2023
This didn't age well and really lends more to the argument that some of these political talking heads are just getting rich pushing a certain narrative while deflecting by projecting their plans. In light of things we are finding out regarding Justice Thomas, for example, or Kavanaugh and his "mystery donor".
I keep trying to read books from people I don't agree with to see where people are coming from, but Levin has a reputation for including just enough truth in an example to get away with using it while stretching it out and repurposing it until it's not actual truth. I just wish people wouldn't pretend to be unbiased when they publish these sorts of things because some people take them at face value.
I keep trying to read books from people I don't agree with to see where people are coming from, but Levin has a reputation for including just enough truth in an example to get away with using it while stretching it out and repurposing it until it's not actual truth. I just wish people wouldn't pretend to be unbiased when they publish these sorts of things because some people take them at face value.
Read
August 7, 2021This is like a time capsule of where law and politics stood. If you just started paying attention to things like judicial confirmations, campaign finance, abortion, or election law this would be useful to show what has come before. Otherwise, the law and politics have moved on so far that the legal fights that are described are almost quaint.
I do think it shows how the conservatives fight cultural battles with procedures and principles and lose every time. Levin is right on a lot of issues, but it doesn’t matter if you are right if the other side doesn’t care about rightness. The answer might be a more informed electorate, but that seems pretty hopeless too.
I do think it shows how the conservatives fight cultural battles with procedures and principles and lose every time. Levin is right on a lot of issues, but it doesn’t matter if you are right if the other side doesn’t care about rightness. The answer might be a more informed electorate, but that seems pretty hopeless too.
March 18, 2018
**This is more of a reading journal and less of a review; as such, it will be worthless to others.**
FANTASTIC BOOK. Absolutely fantastic. so enlightening. claims well-proven; lots and lots of examples and specifics. unarguable facts - and scary
the only reason it took me so long to finish this book is b/c it kept making me so mad - the truth it's telling, that is, not the book itself.
this should be read by every American or would-be American.
i REALLY wish this book were updated to include the obama years.
FANTASTIC BOOK. Absolutely fantastic. so enlightening. claims well-proven; lots and lots of examples and specifics. unarguable facts - and scary
the only reason it took me so long to finish this book is b/c it kept making me so mad - the truth it's telling, that is, not the book itself.
this should be read by every American or would-be American.
i REALLY wish this book were updated to include the obama years.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 26, 2020
Fantastic book on the history and problems with judicial activism on SCOTUS. A little dated as of 2020, since there are many more recent contemporary examples, which the author would certainly highlight if the book were written today, but the point the author is making and the principle of originalism as the only solid principle for the judiciary is as valid now as it was then—indeed the case becomes stronger s time passes.
Excellent book that’s well researched and very digestible for the layman.
Excellent book that’s well researched and very digestible for the layman.
March 1, 2024
"The Supreme Court is abusing and subverting its constitutional role. It has chosen to become the unelected, unassailable social engineer of American society. The sad truth is that the other branches of government have been complicit in the Court's power grab" (195). Here is Levin's thesis statement for his book. The Afterword provides a summation of the contents of the book. The twelve chapters supply the supporting evidence which demonstrate the veracity of Levin's thesis. It is a compelling case.
March 20, 2018
At times, I felt as if I was in over my head. The subject matter was confusing & I personally struggled with keeping the cases straight. Levin helped me in seeing the court for who they are, people. Flawed often times and often over reaching. The list of justices that probably overstayed their term on the court was interesting. The frustration that we have with the court is that it has wrestled power away from the other 2 branches of our government & ultimately the people.
May 14, 2018
Wow! If you like horror movies and books, you will love this book. It has it all from how judges and courts legislate from the bench, create “rights” not found in the Constitution, are influenced by political operatives, and much more. The author is an experienced lawyer and has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court. He presents an historical overview of various judges and discusses many case examples where judges have overstepped their authority. You get a good understanding of one of the more mysterious of our three branches of government and where we may be headed if we continue along our current path. Very readable, interesting, and informative! Every American should read this book to better understand our legal system.
December 3, 2018
According to Mark Levin, the Supreme Court has too much power. These nine unelected people control what laws are acceptable and which aren't, and thus have an enormous impact on our country and its culture. Levin believes that the Court corrupts the ideals of the Founders, and does not truly defend the Constitution. Using case studies to illustrate his point, Levin makes you question the role of the judiciary. Very interesting! And worrisome... like all of Mark Levin's books.
March 5, 2019
While I think Mark Levin is a dynamic political pundit, "Men in Black" left me a little dry. No doubt that Levin filled his book with details, facts, strong arguments, but I hate to admit: I wanted to like it more than I did. Levin showcases abuses of how the supreme court wants to make the Constitution fit its will rather than be a translator, however I can't say it struck me as emotionally compelling as I wanted it to.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews