This book is equally littered with salient criticisms of the court and frantic, logically inconsistent ultra-conservative ravings. Not a bad read, and undoubtably historically astute, but make no mistake: this was written from atop a soapbox, not from a chair in the library.
As an attorney, I was astounded at how uninformed the author is. I read this book via the local library and was greatly disappointed. For someone who claims to be a legal scholar, the author certainly does not understand how the law--or the Constitution--works.
If you buy into the "conservative" idea that the courts should be subservient to the other two branches of government, then this book will already appeal to you. If you reject that idea, then this book will irritate you. If you are uncertain, look elsewhere for the arguments supporting this position.
This book is all about blame, not understanding. Indeed, the burden of blame is a great on the author. That's because he has to show how a supreme court appointed almost exclusively by conservative presidents has somehow become a tool of liberal hegemony. If you too feel yourself buckling under the weight of this obvious contradiction, be sure to listen to this book, over and over again. Perhaps it will make you feel better...
Mark R. Levin, YES!
Jeff Riggenbach, NO WAY!
Mark R. Levin's deep and comprehensive understanding of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court, what its role was intended to be, and theimpact of perverting that role.
Mark R. Levin himself! I love listening to his podcast. He is passionate where it is warranted, but speaks softly and from the heart as well, nearly begging the American people to understand and to save this nation that he loves so well. To really get the full force of the book, it needs his own delivery style..
Not only did Riggenbach consistently mispronounce Mark R. Levin's last name (He said it like "leaven" in the sense of causing bread to rise, vs. how Mark says it lev-IN. I just find it terribly unprofessional for a narrator not to even bother getting the author's name right. Riggenbach also sounded bored and even disdainful of what he was reading. His personal opinions of the text should never be evident in his presentation.
It is not a fictional novel, so this does not apply.
I would gladly purchase this book and any others by Mark R. Levin, if he does the narration.
... for a good read. This book endorses a political philosophy that has been put forth by some of the most corrupt leaders of our time, for example that the judiciary should be accountable to the legislature. Besides being patently short-sighted and foolish, this idea runs completely counter to the system of checks and balances developed by the founders and integral to the U.S. Constitution. Another idea presented here is the "activist judge" who is apparently any judge who makes decision based on the law rather than the will of an out of control political majority. This is the kind of drivel you will find here. I'd give it a -1 out of 5, but I don't think the rating system goes that far down.
the author of the book certainly seems to have an agenda which colors the selection of cases treated and the analysis of the current political situation. (if it were possible to rank a book "zero stars" this would be it).
"The Supreme Court endorses terrorists' rights, flag burning... There is a word for this: tyranny."
I'm confused. First off, when does protecting human rights (the constitution makes no exceptions to this, or freedom of expression (the Constitution makes no exceptions to this, either) have anything to do with tyranny? And when does saying something isn't Constitutional the same as "endorsing" it? If Mr. Levin is such a law expert then why is it he doesn't understand that the Supreme Court is not the same as an elected official: they do not make policy based on the will of the people. At all. They merely interpret law based on what is written in the U.S. Constitution. If the people believe so strongly that their interpretations are wrong, then they should make an amendment that clarifies things. That's what we've always done in the past, right and wrong.
Secondly, isn't it actually a contradiction to state that when someone or something takes action to protect the rights of people, that's that is tyranny? It's actually quite the exact opposite of tyranny. This troll needs to stop aimlessly throwing rocks and go back to his cave, pronto.
The author of this attach on "activist" judges forgot one simple truth: an "activist" judge is merely someone you don't agree with.
This book is nothing more than right wing propoganda. As a socially progressive, fiscally conservative man it offended me greatly that the author assumed his beleifs were superior how the courts are run now.
Stay away, spend your time/ money on something/anything else!
A quick historical recap: the Supreme Court was created to balance partisan voices on the left and the right. Justices are beholden to no one. Perhaps they lean one way or the other - don't we all? - but they are there to look hard at cases, think about constitutionality, and make rulings. The Constitution is the Constitution. There's only so much wiggle room there.
This book spins a yarn about the conspiracy of the Supreme Court to invent facts and swing the nation towards its hippie views (ok, maybe that's a bit extreme, but still).
My take: "Men In Black" is no more accurate a read on the Supreme Court than "The National Enquirer" is on the news.
If you're angry about the direction this country is taking, this book will make you angrier, but no closer to finding a real path toward a solution.
If you're afraid of the right wing propoganda machine, this book will offer more fodder at which to scoff and fear. Again, no closer to a solution.
We're a diverse nation. We're going to have diverse views. Grow up and get on with it, Mr. Levin.