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.
Relative to the "founding fathers" and even very conservative approaches to constitutional law, this author is from bizarro-land. This book is a joke, right? Some kind of con?
A man. A plan. A canal. Panama
Despite the alleged legal brilliance of this author, it seems he'd rather scrap our entire system of jurisprudence.
This is not an even handed history but a diatribe aginst the Supreme (and indeed all courts)Court and its perceived "legislation" from the bench of any liberal cause.
What a dope.
If it isn't what he wants, if people do not see things through the prism of his dim mind, they are wrong. Or, worse, they are bad.
This is a yawner, could easily be scripted by Limbaugh or most any other goofball who's got a microphone, a big mouth, a dim brain, an axe to grind. If I could, I'd rate it at zero stars; it's really simplistic.
Don't waste your time.