Men in Black How the Supreme Court is Destroying America - Book Report/Review Example

Men In Black Levin, M. R. (2005). Men in black: How the Supreme Court is destroying America. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the American Constitution and created our system of government. They realized that for a government to succeed, its various branches must be carefully balanced. Each branch of government—judicial, legislative, and executive—must have their purpose and their goals clearly defined, and one was not to be more powerful than any other. It would be the job of the judicial branch to interpret the laws of the land that would be passed by the legislative branch. Nowhere in the Constitution was it said that the Supreme Court of the United States was created to make its own laws. But in this sophisticated and riveting book that is what Levin argues has happened in recent years. According to Levin, the men in black—the justices of the Court—have seized power and are destroying the America that we know and love. His arguments are sensible, engaging, and accurate. He fulfils every goal he sets out. Throughout this book, Levin describes many examples of judicial interference in the lives of Americans. The book is largely written for an educated audience that is interested in law and politics. He argues that justices have become political actors who sit in judgement of all policy questions and impose their will on elected officials. This is unconstitutional in his opinion. The author asks how courts obtained such power over the lives of Americans. It has happened via a slow, creeping effort that largely began during Roosevelt's New Deal era and gained steam in the 1960s and 70s (135). The answer is that the Supreme Court has simply taken such power for itself. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal judiciary expressly given the authority to interject itself into every facet of federal—and state—operation. Federal courts have accumulated their power under the rubric of judicial review. (23). The author here makes an excellent point. Courts have claimed that the Constitution gives them an inherent power to ensure that laws meet the rules laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution nowhere gives the Court that kind of power, it has simply been seized. Rather than having the legislature decide what laws can and cannot be made, courts have decided that they are in the best possession to do this. The truth is that courts are there to interpret the law and ensure it is correctly applied, not to overrule elected officials. Judges have one of two main judicial philosophies, Levin explains. These philosophies guide them in their approach to the law. Generally speaking, judges tend to adhere to one of two philosophies. Too few judges keep their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Those who do, look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of the framers when deciding a constitutional question, and believe they are bound by them. These judges are known as originalists. Too many judges consider the Constitution a document of broad principles and concepts, one that empowers them to substitute their personal beliefs, values, and policies for those enumerated in the Constitution (13). This is a powerful argument and a sensible one. In the 1960s, a kind of moral relativism began to creep across American campuses and law schools. This kind of philosophy suggested that there is no real truth in the world and that one idea or action is not necessarily better than any other. For these people morality is a figment of the imagination, or even worse, an aspect of prejudice. They go whichever way the wind blows and often the only arbiter of whether something is wrong or right is whether it allows more government intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. Throughout this fascinating book, Levin takes the reader on a historical journey to find out how we reached the place that we are, the doorstep of socialism. He explains the cases that really mattered throughout American history, the cases that shifted power away from the people and towards judicial elites. Some of Levin's views are unorthodox and outside of those expressed in the mainstream media, but he deserves credit for cogently and bravely explaining them and fighting for them. The overall picture that emerges from this work is of a country in crisis, a country that has given up its principles and its powers in the name of judicial activism. There are a few points that are important to make about this book. It was published in 2005, the same year that John Roberts became Chief Justice of the United States. The Court, since that time, has become more conservative. One of the main problems that Levin had with the former court was its refusal to stand up for free political speech. The current court has done that with its recent ruling in Citizens United, striking down the McCain-Feingold laws. The Court contains a majority of conservative justices who understand their role as that of guardians of the constitution but not substitute legislators. Levin is probably quite happy about the current court but would be severely disappointed by Justices such as Sotomayor and Kagan, appointed by President Obama. Both of these women have histories of judicial activism. Sotomayor, for example, was pilloried during her nomination hearings for saying that certain personal experiences inform her judicial temperament and the life experience can be a substitute for constitutional interpretation. This is clearly a perfect example of judicial activism as Levin sees it. Benjamin Franklin once famously wrote when asked what the founding fathers had given the people of American, “A Republic—if you can keep it!” In a democratic Republic it is important to respect the will of the people and those who they elect. The men and women of the Supreme Court are elected by no one, Levin argues, and therefore should only have limited power. He hits the nail on the head in this excellent and important book. Overall, he did not change my opinion because I already agreed with him. I agreed that we need to carefully consider the place of the judiciary in our system of government and find a way to reign in the their power. Before it is too late. Read More