The "conservative" Supreme Court *THAT HE APPROVES OF* is destroying the United States.

Any of you ignorant and pinheaded fans of his feel like calling him up and asking him if he feels that it is OK that HIS BELOVED RIGHT WING COURT just decided that corporations should be free to spend as much money as they want to decide who gets elected and who doesn't, and what becomes law and what doesn't - essentially legalizing bribery of our Congressmen?

There is NO hope for you as a human being if you now fail to see how COMPLETELY full of $#!t Mark Levin is. Make NO mistake - he is brainwashing you if you believe the c#ap he spews.

This book was a great introduction to supreme court cases that shaped our lives today. I also read Liberty & Tyranny by the same author and this book was far less partisan. Although there were a few times where it seemed like his right-wing views seemed to cloud his arguments, for the most part his arguments and information followed a reasonable logic.

If you are going to read this book I would recommend having a copy of the constitution handy to reference certain clauses. Anyone who reads this book along with the constitution will be shocked and appalled once they realize how far the constitution has been distorted and the flawed logic under which we have done so.

Read this book and learned things I should always have known. This understanding of our system of government should be a dedicated course in high schools across America. Made me angry with myself for not knowing the information Mark gives in this book. Have lent or given copies of this book to friends to wake them up. There should be a warning on this book "This Book will make you angry with yourself, read and enter a new understanding of America and the dangers facing you and your family".

...like Mark Levin! This book is a fantastic read. The man is a Constitutional scholar, and the amount of research and detail that fills these pages are incredible. With each chapter, Mark lays out a particular area in which the courts, focusing primarily on the Supreme Court, have strayed from the original intent of the Constitution, and have instead opted for the approach of judicial review or legislating from the bench; and in many cases, citing sources outside the Constitution or even personal opinions (ala "fiat"). And he shows us that the primary attacks on the traditional rule of law have taken place within our last century by none other than activist judges and their liberal advocates. If you believe in the founding principles of the Constitution, and are curious where the courts have gone wrong, you need to read THIS book! Mark, I love ya, man...you are a true patriotic American. Preach on, brother!

Audiobook
7 disks
approx. 8 hours
read by Jeff Riggenbach

"Men in Black" is written by Mark Levin, talk show host, author, member of the Reagan Administration, part of the Landmark Legal Foundation, National Review Online and numerous other endeavors. Levin offers a compelling argument that shows that the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority from its beginnings.

Levin's arguments are presented in classic Levin style - direct and in your face. He opens with nearly an hour of biographies of various flawed and suspect court members that have served throughout the years. The purpose? To demonstrate that Supreme Court Justices are not legal gods, but flawed men and women who are susceptible to the same temptations of the elected politicians of the other branches to mis-use the machinery of government.

He then lays out a history of the court's more questionable decisions and argues that the court does not have the authority to create law, merely nullify it (if that). He finishes with a survey of the current hot button topics that the court has been visiting (abortion, election law, campaign finance reform, legal rights for terrorists). I don't agree with all of Levin's conclusions but they are vigorously argued and interesting nonetheless.

The last section is the strongest except for one area: he lists 50 section 527 political groups, including how much they brought in and how much they spent. In the audiobook format, this list takes more than 12 minutes to read through - 12 minutes of a list! Yikes, was it ever boring.

The other problem is the reader of the audiook. He mispronounces the names of Supreme Court Justices and, strangely, the author of the book at the beginning of every disk. Riggenbach pronounces Levin like "leaven" when Levin clearly pronounces it "Luh-vin" on his radio show. The long list and the names drop a 4 star audiobook to a 3 star book.

Introduction by Rush Limbaugh. Epilogue by Ed Meese.

Recommended for conservatives interested in Constitutional history.

"...for a serious national debate about the role of the judiciary in modern America....For too long the courts have grabbed ever more authority over the course of our society...."-Mark Levin

So much for separation of powers when judges do the unthinkable and start legislating from the bench. Legislation belongs to congress according to our founding fathers. Who really understands our constitution anyway? People like Mark Levin do, thanks be to G-d. I'm fast becoming an originalist and a conservative. Read books like Levin's and you'll begin to understand the wisdom of our founding fathers, and will be terribly appalled at what some of our government officials have undermined in America. Don't neglect reading this book. Read this too as well as his bestseller "Liberty and Tyranny". Shame on what has happened to our legal system.

Mark Levin again proves that he is one of the most brilliant minds in political commentary today. His knowledge of history, law, the Constitution and politics blend elegantly in this detailed exposé of the inner workings of the Supreme Court, and the general judicial system. His well-documented research (including actual copies of insider memos) serves to explain why and reveal how things are being manipulated in our government today. The development of current pivotal events, such as the establishment of Gitmo, the changing debate about how terrorists should be treated, and the Presidential election quagmire in Florida were particularly enlightening, but many passages were replete with unfamiliar legal terms (which he seemed to write as though most people would understand them). The reporting of equally unfamiliar legal processes detracted from my complete enjoyment of the book. This is not "Men in Black for Dummies," yet I recommend it to anyone who wants to improve their understanding about how important things in high places get done, and by whom.

Everyone with any kind of interest in law and the Constitution should read this book. It very meticulously addresses how activists have hijacked the Supreme Court throughout history, moving United States' common law even further from it's original intent. Levin has crafted a masterpiece, one that is as important to our future as a country as it is to our past.

I agree with Levin that the Supreme Court is out of control. But Levin, as he is so prone to doing, distracts us from what is really important, repeating the GOP fairy tale that conservative judges respect the Constitution as originally written---unlike liberal judges who legislate from the bench.

History shows otherwise. Conservative Supreme Court judges have utterly transformed America, making it more authoritarian, racist, and beholden to corporations, by doing exactly what they accuse liberals of doing: legislating from the bench.

Conservative judges decided what many scholars agree are the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. The 1857 Dred Scott decision proclaimed blacks "unfit to associate with the white race" and declared they have no rights. In Bush v. Gore, five Republican appointees twisted the law and ignored both the will of the voters and their own judicial philosophies to make George Bush President--and not coincidentally, to enable him to put more "Originalists" on the bench.

Our Founding Fathers astutely recognized the threat corporate power poses to democracy, and kept corporations on a short leash. Corporate charters limited them to commercial activities and required that they serve the public interest. Without any authorization from Congress or Constitutional amendments, conservative justices have yanked we the people from the driver's seat, locked us in the trunk, and given the keys to corporate CEO's.

Particularly despicable is their distortion of the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains sweeping language, making all "persons" equal before the law. Although it was intended to make all people equal before the law, and was especially aimed at protecting and giving citizenship to the newly-freed slaves, conservative justices refused to enforce it. Within a few decades, they ruled the federal government can't intervene when states refused to prosecute whites for murdering blacks, unwilling whites could be forced to discriminate against blacks, and "separate but equal facilities" are acceptable, thereby allowing Jim Crow laws.

But when corporate lawyers argued that corporations are "persons" entitled to Fourteenth amendment protections, the Supreme Court listened. Conservatives eagerly granted corporations rights clearly intended for human beings, allowing corporations to avoid taxation and regulation and vastly expand their power, while allowing them to no be "persons" when that was more convenient. They also used the 14th Amendment as a club to help corporations exploit workers, striking down attempts to prevent child labor, institute a minimum wage, and limit the number of hours employers could force people to work.

The often-maligned liberal Warren Court actually enforced the Constitution, supporting individual liberties, while overturning despicable laws that segregated schools and punished interracial marriage.

The Roberts Court continues the conservative trend of favoring corporate over individual rights. On one day, they allowed schools to censor student speech, even off school property, while defending so-called corporate "free speech" rights, allowing them to pour unlimited cash into certain types of political ads--without even disclosing the source. This corporate "free speech" is thinly-disguised bribes which makes politicians deaf to the needs of most Americans.

Personally, I find it interesting that these self-proclaimed "Originalists" profess to interpret the Constitution the way our Founding Fathers intended. First, the Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves at the way the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to rule America. Secondly, the America created by our Founding Fathers was an aristocracy, ruled by rich white men, that allowed slavery. These "Originalists" seem not to want to acknowledge that the Constitution was transformed (or should have been) to by the 14th Amendment.

Well written. Mark Levin is a respected Constitutional Lawyer. I would recommend this book highly

I decided to read this book knowing fullwell that I would not agree with most of it. On social issues I tend to believe in less government intervention, and on legal issues I support a minimalist approach. As such, I appreciate that the author here seems to support a philosophy of less action by the judiciary. That is something I can support. However, there are some glaring logical errors in this book that leave me unimpressed by the arguements themselves.

First, the author often likes to refer to the consitution as though there is no question about the process one would use to interpret it. He seems to be annoyed that justices would even think to address issues that are not specifically mentioned in the text of the constitution. That is one way of looking at interpretation, and one I would compare to strict interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately for this author it is not one that is shared by the larger legal community. Even as early as grade school, students are taught that the consitution is meant to provide guidance in answering fundamental legal questions. Defining "liberty" is not as easy as reading the text of the constitution (as the author would suggest), and such an "interpretation" (if it can rightly be called such) is an exercise in ignorance.

The author also takes every opportunity to discredit the individuals on the court rather than their jurisprudence. I enjoyed the amusing anecdotes about justices who had affiars and justices who acted immorally, but these issues are irrelevant to their judicial philosophies which cannot be thrown out simply because they acted improperly in other areas. I heard no arguements against Breyers interpretation of liberty, or O'Connors legendary reliance on public opinion, or even Scalia's originalist philosophy. I only ever heard that scalia was right and the other justices were wrong, which is hardly a strong arguement.

The author seemed to have a good time ragging on justices like Kennedy who use international interpretation to inform their decisions. What he does not mention is that most often, this information is not part of the binding decision, it is part of the dicta that frames the arguement. Moreover, the justices are clearly making reference to interpretations made by other courts and not their laws. Those interpretations, often based on constitutions that are similar to our own, can most certainly be used to inform the interpretations of our court, because they better inform the justices about methods. As such the justices are not using other countries LAWS to inform their decisions, they are using other countries METHODS to inform their interpretations.

It is also worth noting that the author decries the supreme court for allowing blatant violations of the constitution (Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu) and then in the very next chapter claims that judicial review (the method by which the court would challenge these violations) is an extra-constitution power the court should not have. You can't have it both ways here, either they were right in exercising judicial restraint, or they should have exercised judicial review.

Finally, I have a serious problem with the authors contention that there are only two campus of judical interpretation: constructionists vs. non-constructionists. This is probably the least supportable of all his suggestions in this books and it wreaks of a "with us or against us" mentality. I would recommend the author (and readers) look to other sources for a more complete explanation of the different forms of interpretation that might include fundamentalism (Scalia), minimalism (O'Connor or sometimes Reinquist), and "Active Liberty" (Breyer), just to name a few.

I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys reading both sides of the arguement, but you should realize that you will be frustrated by the authors clear bias and lack of logical foundations. It's not really surprising to me that the author of this book is a commentator and not a legal practitioner.

intelligent and informative. truth may scare and offended some citizens but it is true nonetheless.

Considering what actual little truth there is out there on the landslide of legislating from the bench and the complete disregard for the strict constitutionalist viewpoints that each justice should take, this book is a refreshing and startling look behind the scenes in the chambers of some of the most outrageous characters to have ever served on this most esteemed and venerated bench. This book is a must have for all lovers of liberty, this nation and the constitution.

Very Timely and Revealing. The life long appointment of judges for this prestigious court is very important, especially now with the first female judge to be considered for that job. The politics behind it is very interesting.Different from what the public think. Very enjoyable.I would also recommend for further reading on American history:

Silent Victims: The Plight of Arab & Muslim Americans in Post 9/11 America

A master piece. This book will shake you to the core with regards to our legal system. Easy read.

This book has taught me concepts at which my constitutional law course in law school didn't even hint. Mark Levin's book should be in every law library in every law school in the country. It is a treasure, and very readable-----probably for any level of reader. After reading about the court's legal gymnastics concerning separation of state and religion I'll never revere the Supreme Court in the same way again.

Another good book by Mark Levin. Today the Supreme Court seems to legislate from the bench, which is not their role. Their role is to interpret the Constitution. Justice is blind, but some justices do not practice or apply these concepts. Unelected judges do not rule, they INTERPRET the law! Another good read for Progressives. They have so much to learn!!!

This is mind-blowing to see how far from the constitution our country has come with the help of these "activist" judges. This society is degrading and this branch of our government is most responsible.
Mark Levin describes the Supreme Court's unconstitutional power grabs that have led to the increase of tyranny in America. This is a must read! His writing style is excellent, and his knowledge of the constitution is unmatched!

I bought this book, not realizing how informative it would turn out to be. I am interested in our three divisions of government and have heard less about the Supreme Court than the legislative and executive branches. This book picqued my interest and taught me facts that I was unaware of. It is a book that I have recommended to all of my sons. Intriguing and interesting. Those judges are normal folks who have been appointed to serve in an unique position in our country.

There are many reviews of this book, and most of what I'll say has already been said, but I'll add my 2 cents worth.

Mr. Levin complains about how the courts, in particular the Supreme Court, are perverting the constitution. He blames activist judges for imposing their own views instead of the views of the framers of the constitution. Unfortunately, an "activist" judge boils down to one who Mr. Levin disagrees with.

On the good side, he does discuss the evolution of a number of areas of law such as religion, abortion, sexual conduct, affirmative action, and others. Most people will agree that the court renders political judgements, and in many cases judges first decide the outcome of the case, then figure out a rationale. To believe things would happen otherwise is naive, or we need to go to a purely logical court system which deals only in law and precedent (see portions of Lloyd Biggle's novel Monument for an interesting approach to this).

While there is some good discussion, to a large extent the book becomes more a political statement than a legal analysis.

One of Mr. Levin's premises is that the courts should defer to the legislative and executive branches. He explains that Judicial Review (where a court declares a law unconstitutional) is a power the Supreme Court invented for itself in the case of Madison v. Marbury.

This argument quickly breaks down. Early in the book Mr. Levin describes four bad Supreme Court decisions. He says these are a result of activist judges. The problem is that in two of the four cases, the court cleasrly upheld the legislative and executive branches, declaring laws constitutional. It soon becomes apparent that in many cases (e.g. the New Deal), Mr. Levin feels that the courts were wrong in upholding laws and that there are laws they should declare unconstitutional.

Mr. Levin also argues for "original intent", meaning narrowly interpreting the constitution as its framers intended. He seems to have no trouble determining what the framers intended, which is surprising given the wide range of views between Madison and Hamilton, not even considering other founding fathers.

While original intent and a corresponding limitation of Federal power are good arguments, Mr. Levin quietly ignores expansions of Federal power he agrees with. There is an extensive discussion of the courts granting rights to illegal immigrants. The related constitutional clause, saying that congress can set "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" is quoted several times. Yet the Federal government didn't do more than set requirements for citizenship until 1875. So a true original intent argument should be that the Federal government get out of the immigration business and leave it to the states.

The book also fails when it gets to partisan politics. The Democrats are criticized for blocking George W. Bush's judicial nominees, with Mr. Levin explaining that the Senate should promptly vote on nominees and in general defer to the president. Unfortunately, the fact that the Republicans blocked Bill Clinton's nominees is only mentioned when quoting some Democratic memos. Mr. Levin loses his case by not addressing the fact that both sides do the same thing. This turns the argument from a criticism of the process to a partisan political argument.

The book ends with suggestions for reforming the courts. The proposals are in terms of a congressional override of court decisions or limited terms for judges. Unfortunately, Mr. Levin gives no reason why these will reign in activist judges. By his own arguments, activist judges often uphold bad laws. If Congress overrode a court decision striking down a bad law, Mr. Levin would be back complaining about Congress violating the constitution. Similarly, limited court terms could allow "activist" judges to be removed, but could just as easily be used to throw off non-"activist" judges. Congress is even less concerned with staying within the constitution than the courts, and the proposed reforms would quickly become next year's talk radio complaint topics.

There are good arguments that the courts have exceeded their authority and legislated from the bench. Unfortunately, Mark Levin's "Men In Black" ends up more an exercise in political ideology than principled legal concepts.

I now appreciate Clarence Thomas so much more. He and others like him should be on the Supreme Court to ensure our liberty and freedom.

Thanks to FDR in the 1930's the word supreme took on a new meaning in our court system.

Very informative writing on who is really taking control in this country. Mark gives a great representation of the history of the Supreme Court and how a small swing in balance between liberal and conservative judges can greatly affect our freedoms.

Levin is very rare among current radio talk show hosts -- he has intellectual
meat to back up his views. He worked in the Reagan administration, and is a
practicing lawyer. In a 280 page book, there are 45 pages of notes.

Men in Black lays the case for what the judiciary is supposed to do according to the constitution. Levin's view is the surpreme court should read the words in the constitution and determine whether the cases how the cases before it maps into those words -- not to give their own interpretation of what "should be there".

It talks about various Supreme court cases for over 200 years, (including Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, California v. Bakke), dissects the decisions
and gives Mark's clear spin on them.

Well worth reading.

Great job on Men in Black, Mark! Much success to your new book, Liberty and Tyranny.

Thank you so much for your faithfulness to our people and to the Constitution of the United States.

You and your ilk are faithful. You should be president. At least then, we would know that the person who vowed to God and before the American people would be true to the Constitution.

God bless you and keep you brother.

-aL

Read "The New Color Line" by Paul Craig Roberts. A much better book and by a real conservative, not a fake one like Levin.

An interesting read, but is seriously slanted. But would you expect anything less from the person who nominated Rush Limbaugh for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - and was serious about it!

Mark Levin has clearly written a warning to liberals in Supreme Court. Now I've heard of Ruth Ginsberg retiring, and that means this book is necessary to teach what Rules for Radicals leftist nominee a Rules for Radicals president will nominate, with sure Senate approval

Strange, the biggest case of judicial activism is entirely ignored by the right. Of course it was the decision by the conservative majority in 2000 to end the Presidential count in the state of Florida after they had already delayed it! Second the US Supreme court ruled on the state law of Florida, overturning the Supreme Court of Florida. If they had ruled on federal and not state law, that would be one thing. Now, is the right favorable of states' rights or only when it serves their political purposes? Levin, the grating one as I believe he is called, excels at calling those he disagrees with names. Unfortunately, he cannot yell on print as he does on the radio. Now, Mr. Levin is opposed to judges "inventing rights" but he ignores the fact that the founders didnt' give us a limited set of rights. They gave us broad rights and then went ahead and wrote a 9th Ammendment guaranteeing rights not already mentioned in the previous Bill of Rights. I never understood the idea of decrying rights. I would err on the side of too many rights and not too little. If the individual isn't harming another in their action, they should and have the right to do X. That is the view of the founders. I wish Mr. Levin would understand that.

Levin's book is a conservative's assault on many of the last century's major decisions in the realm of constitutional law. Actually, there are multiple assaults here, one for each new canon of law these decisions produced. And in each attack, the theme is the same: the Court is usurping the political branches, ignoring the rule of law, and establishing itself as a tyrannical body void of any democratic control.

While this may be music to many a right-tilting ear, the book only nibbles at the periphery of the modern debate. It never presents a coherent view of Article III in the context of federalism and the so-termed Madisonian dilemma. These being the ideas that power is shared between the federal and state governments, and that while we embrace majority rule, we still must protect minority rights. In the context of Article III, the debate is how the Court should preserve and balance these two ideas without sacrificing its own legitimacy or our traditional conceptions of justice.

The best book I've read to date interpreting Article III is Robert Bork's The Tempting of America. For Bork, the answer to the problems above is originalism. For Levin, the answer is the same, but where Bork argues and defends why this is so, Levin, just presumes it. Because he does so, it's not clear that Levin has critically analyzed this issue. In fact, although Levin proposes a number of democratic controls for reigning in what he paints is a runaway judicial system, his controls are likely to make a bad situation worse by eroding what he hopes to maintain--judicial integrity.

Nevertheless, while Bork's book may have a surer footing, Levin's is still a good follow-up. Bork's book is almost two decades old, and by narrating the cases that have transpired since then, Levin shows that the Court has not deviated much from its previous course. Levin also elaborates on the continued politicization of the judicial nomination process, a subject that Bork introduces with much personal vigor. In these ways, Levin's book continues the discussion. It just doesn't do much to advance the debate.

This book is destined to be an all time best seller! I was astonished to see the truth about the incompetance and downright corrupt Justices that have served on the Supreme Court. This book is extremely well researched and superbly written. Mark Levin's suggestions to correct the problems with our Supreme Court are right on the money! A must read!!

An excellent and informative historical review of the implications and perhaps unintended consequences of Supreme Court rulings. Thorough source documentation. Entertaining, easy read.

Everyone should read this book no matter where you stand politicially.
Our CONSTITUTION must be upheld for our GREAT NATION TO REMAIN FREE. Our Founding Fathers put together the Constitution to protect US from Government. This book shows that the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES choosen should ALL FOLLOW the Constitution and NOT TRY TO READ SOMETHING in it that is not there. While most of the public's attention focuses on abortion and gay rights, Mr. Levin shows how many other areas of our basic constitutional law have been corrupted by judges willing to supplant the intentions of the framers with their own moral predilections.
Americans need to read this book ......READ YOUR CONSTITUTION with an honest, clear vision of our FREEDOMS.

Mark Levin is top notch in this field and presents a solid case against legislating from the bench. I learned quite a bit from this book.

When the gold clause cases were decided in the 1930s, Justice James McReynolds was alleged to remark that the Constitution was gone. Indeed, his questionable background notwithstanding, the remark took place in the midst of the New Deal where FDR intimidated the court with his court-packing plan. The subsequent surrender by Justice Hughes and company marked the end of significant judicial restraint that Mr. Levin talks about in his book Men in Black.

The book presents a basic overview of the problem of activism that has plagued SCOTUS throughout its existence. The chapters cover various subjects of state and federal policy that the justices have taken upon themselves to interpet and reinterpet. Topics covered included early activism in the Dred Scott cases and the blocking of judicial nominees by the then-minority Democrats in the Senate. The discussion is not too heavy on facts and figures and is a little outdated with the passing of Chief Justice Renquist. Nevertheless, I recommend this book to get a overview of the subject.

Excellent historical and informative expose on how the nation's highest court is undermining our basic liberties and freedoms. Mark Levin is a straight shooter who tells it like it is and explains legalese concepts that are difficult to understand.

The "great one" Mark Levine has detailed the account of the Supreme Court in defying the separation of powers. The Court has increasing been making the law and not interpreting the constitution. Judicial tyranny is robbing us of our freedoms and Mr. Levine shows that Americans right to vote has been diminished. Our votes have at times been negated by the Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers desired three equal branches of government. However, the Supreme Court has succeeded in imposing it's will on the other braches and the voters. We have to understand the role of the judiciary branch in America. Without this knowledge we may lose our freedoms. Mark Levine has done an outstanding service to America in providing this writing.

What's the most pressing problem facing our nation? Well, there are a ton to choose from. You could say external forces looking to exterminate us. That would certainly be valid, but I'm always been more of an implosion versus explosion guy in terms threats. Frankly, I think our own seditionists are the biggest threat to our liberty. They'll bring down this country far earlier than any terrorists ever will. Over the last forty years the radicals have marched through our organizations, universities, and government and allowed what was once the counter-culture to become the culture. Nowhere is this more true than in our judiciary wherein the laws crafted by our representatives in the legislature have been struck down by judges who think it is their role to teach us what we should really want.

In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall: You do what you think is right and let the law catch up. Only, it's not the judiciary's role to make laws and that's why Mark Levin penned his masterpiece Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. The book came out in 2005 so, as always, I got to its pages a little late. Unfortunately, nothing is going to change in the immediate future so it remains pertinent. Some of you may know Mark Levin's name, but, honestly, before this year I never listened to his talk radio show. After a month I discovered he's the best host out of them all. He also excels at writing. Essentially, Men in Black mirrors his approach to verbal conservatism: it's insightful, concise, and ruthlessly on topic. There's not a wasted word here. What I found most attractive about its narrative is that he makes extensive use of primary source documents. He lets the justices, in their opinions, tell their own tale. The book is a compilation of history and cogent analysis. He discusses specifically several of the 100 justices who have been members of the Supreme Court, and their flaws were readily apparent. They were men, not gods.

Levin offers readers an outstanding discussion of the most important court cases in our nation's history. Many of them I had read about before but have long since forgotten. His discussion of religion in Chapter 3 and the establishment clause was thoroughly enlightening. Specifically, we see how cases like Everson v. Board of Education created the fallacious doctrine of there being a "wall of separation" between church and state. Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Wallace v. Jeffree illustrates the method by which this notion was created. "Justices in the Bedroom" in Chapter Five was a standout as well, but most topical was Chapter Ten, "Silencing Political Debate." To what extent does McCain-Feingold erode our liberties? Right now it's hard to say. I agree with the author that advertising is speech, and the recent letter Obama sent to the Justice Department concerning the William Ayers ad put out by a 527 organization is an example of how the left will take advantage of any loophole as a means to silence their critics. Overall, we are not as free as we used to be and Mark Levin's Men in Black illustrates why this is the case.

When I bought this book I thought it was going to be about our corrupt judiciary, what is wrong with it, and how we might fix it. I was a little disappointed in the content, as from the first few pages I discovered it's more of a right hates left attack on liberalism circa the judiciary. It has more to do with how judicial decision affect party politics and how if you disagree with a verdict that judge must be an "activist." If that is what you are looking for, I recommend it.

I'm more interested in say, how judges use immunity to break the law, destroy lives, uphold blatantly unconstitutional government actions and protect their cronies while they fleece regular Americans.

I recommend this book to everyone. The information contained in this book is not only educational, but it is pertinent to the cultural battle that is underway today by liberals using activist judges to circumvent our constitution. An easy read, and a must read, and you will understand how the courts are having an effect upon you and your children, whether you realize it or not, by bypassing the legislative process to make the government do things we would never vote for in a million years.

In World War 2 this guy would have been known as a Kapo......sending up his own people so he can come out on top....he is unintelligent and a fabricator of hate news.
Guys like this are the very reason the US is so hated by everyone these days....buying his books and listening to him on radio only supports terrorism.

Mark Levin is one of those unmistakable specimens who first appears right in his analysis but under scrutiny quietly slides on rose-colored glasses to see what he desires rather than the whole truth. Sean Hannity is of a similar mold. Both appear as thoughtful and intelligent constitutional conservatives placing principle above politics and eternal truths over convenient pragmatism. The cultivated image these radio jockeys spend years polishing is in fact a false veneer thrown over the eyes of ordinary people who cannot see for themselves the reality through the rhetoric. Despite its bragging of impeccable conservative credentials and commitment to the truths of the Founding Fathers, the crowd of Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, and Limbaugh cheer on the Bush administration and the modern Republican Party without noting how said political forces pose and shove ideals that are contrary to their intellectual forefathers. "Men in Black" documents some obvious instances of the Supreme Court's overstepping of its constitutional authority upon relaying decisions pertaining to economics, gay marriage, foreign policy, and abortion. The book, not counting its appendices and index, is a mere 205 pages long. I could admittedly write a book twice as long that reveals the tyranny of Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress who, according to Levin, appear to be Godsend for the United States. If somebody possesses the courage and integrity to call herself a constitutional conservative, I expect consistency right down to the crossed `Ts' and dotted `Is`. The above crowd is neither courageous nor consistent. They are cheerleaders for those who actually wish to do away with our Constitution.

"Men in Black" is structurally quite messy for the work of a former cabinet adviser and chief of staff to the U.S. attorney general. The book feels like a checklist of tasks that require frenzied completion coupled with repeating injections of tempered outrage that squeals, "Judicial activism! Egads! Egregious!" Levin proclaims with joyful, tearful adoration the Bush-initiated "War on Terror" after he blames the _Supreme Court_ for abusing its authority with conjuring up rules for how immigrants can enter the United States! He correctly notes of the Constitution's grant to Congress of constructing America's immigration policy. The flaw in the argument that Levin fails to take note of is the Republican-controlled Congress' dereliction of duty by not securing the border and enforcing the immigration laws currently on the books. He chides the SCOTUS for something that Congress has ALSO failed to do for at least 20 years, and what is worse, the Congress possessed the AUTHORITY to perform this task. Levin's beloved Republican Party, which controlled Congress from 1995-2007, did not do what was constitutionally required of the Congress: secure the borders and enforce immigration laws. How does this relate to the Bush administration's "War on Terror?" The answer is obvious: a man in his home cannot expect to defend his family from an invader by leaving the door open and unlocked as he attempts to crack down on _potential_ invaders thousands of miles away from home. Meanwhile, the livid and murderous invader has already clutched the child by the throat. For a more cogent analysis of this paradox, I direct you to Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin`s column: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin450.htm

The book contains intellectual contradictions that could shame the Democrats, and it would be wearisome to recount them in this review. They are not difficult to find anyway. Levin rallies against "socialism from the bench" while omitting that George W. Bush permitted the largest increase in government spending in our nation's history, surpassing even Lyndon Baines Johnson and right-wing idol Ronald Reagan, who chalked up more government debt than any other president before him combined. I do not need to say much more. Pundits and commentators on television and on radio spew drivel and half-truths for hours on end each day, which is why I do not care to submit myself to such a depressing object as the Boob Tube. The real crime of these radio shock jocks is the blatant discouraging of intellectual inquiry and careful research. Rush Limbaugh himself directs his minions to accept his words as Gospel. And I guess that's that, isn't it? You cannot really argue with the Gospel, which is why I say to the poor listeners of talk radio, "Get out while you still can!"

Mark Levin gives wonderful insight on the most important legal decisions and the men and women who wrote these decisions. He does a particularly good job in discussing Hugo Black and how his anti-Catholicism led to 'separation of church and state' entering constitutional law. He, also, gives an excellent explanation of Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist's decisions on Bush v. Gore. Also, there is a very humorous part about past judges and their tomfoolery. 'Men in Black' is an excellent read for anyone interested in law.

Men in Black is a book about excessive government power. It isn't concerned so much with legislative or executive power. Rather, this is a book about the growing power and influence of the Supreme Court; a court that author Mark Levin feels has overstepped its boundaries and taken upon itself to write the law in its own terms, often against the will of the people.

Levin speaks with authority on the issue of Supreme Court responsibility and the division of power among the three branches of the U.S. government. He is a Constitutional lawyer so he is certainly qualified to write a book such as this. However, this book doesn't necessarily present the strongest case against Supreme Court authority and abuse of power and many of its arguments are weak and sometimes contradictory. One of the arguments the author makes throughout the book, for example, is that a law that has been voted into place by the people should almost always stand; without interference from the Supreme Court or any other court trying to overturn it. But what this type of argument fails to point out is that, since the United States was founded as a Republic form of government, the rights of all people- majority, minority, and otherwise- must be respected and upheld. Rights are not up for a vote, but based on Levin's reasoning, he seems to think it's okay to take away certain rights if the ballot results say so.

Levin also argues against other things that many American's cherish, like the right to privacy. True, there is no explicit right to privacy granted in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't an implied right, intended by the nation's founders. Surveys show that the majority of Americans feel that privacy is a right and should be Constitutionally protected. Levin feels it is not a right and that the Supreme Court should not treat it as such. It's interesting how the book so Levin so quickly changes his position on democracy and the importance of upholding the will of the people when they vote something into law. If a vote of the people confirms the right to privacy, one would think that someone like Levin would agree that it should be made into law. But based on his other convictions in this book, he would likely be against it, in direct contradiction of some of his other stands on the issues and the Supreme Court's authority to decide them.

In spite of Men In Black's faulty reasoning, there are some parts worth reading. The best chapter (by far) is chapter 10, "Silencing Political Debate". Here, the book accurately points out the very unconstitutional and un- American McCain- Feingold act of 2002 and how it silences free speech by making it a crime to talk about politicians in the days leading up to an election. How this ever became law and survived a review by the Supreme Court, I will never know. Levin is one- hundred percent correct in his criticism of this act and I share his disgust. Besides this chapter, there are some other good points made regarding certain individual laws (many are mentioned in the book) from over the years and how their fate was decided by the Supreme Court and they also make for good reading.

Overall, however, Men in Black isn't quite the incredible work of constitutional writing that some of its endorsers claim. Mark Levin seems upset at the Supreme Court more for the trend toward more liberal thinking than for its supposed violations of the U.S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court was violating the Constitution in favor of a position that he and his fellow conservatives approve, then I doubt he would say anything about it. He also seems to believe that the will of the people is sufficient to trample on rights. It all adds up to a less than average book that fails to convince me of its initial premise: That the U.S. Supreme Court has excessive power and wields too much influence. It's a nice effort, but it doesn't quite convince.

'Men in Black' is necessary reading. We should require all high school students to read this book as part of their civics requirement. Mark Levin explains the constitution and the Supreme Court's role in destroying it in exquisite detail.

The first thing I would suggest doing before reading this book or any other political book is to actually read the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. It can be found for free on the internet.

When discussing one of my favorite issues of our time, the interaction of government and religion, invariably the phrase of "Separation of Church and State" is put forth. My simple retort is to then challenge the individual to find that phrase in the U.S. Constitution. It's my belief that if you asked the entire population of the United States, 80 - 90% of the people would say that phrase could be found in the Constitution. But alas, those words can be found nowhere in the Constitution or the first amendment specifically. It isn't all that surprising that people hold that belief based on the fact that the phrase is uttered ad nauseam through the media, politicians and judges. This simple fact alone leads me to suggest actually reading the entire document before moving on to books regarding the Constitution.

The above being said, whether you are a middle of the roader, left wing loony or a right wing nut job like me I think Mr. Levin's Men in Black is a valuable read. It gives accounts on how the judiciary has usurped power that isn't specifically given it in the Constitution.

For people that applaud judicial activism such as Roe v. Wade, rulings against religious activities, etc. they should take pause and consider that someday the result may be widespread judicial activism from the right. Neither being a good thing. Legislating belongs in Congress where politicians are accountable to the people by election. To me Mr. Levin shows the danger of when judges take power not given them in the Constitution and use it to get their personally desired results enacted.

The book is specifically broken out in chapters that discuss specific topics, such as role of religion, rights to privacy, social policy enacted from the bench as well as several others. While I felt the arguments could have at times been better developed, I do believe this is a valuable book to read to gain a better understanding of our current judiciary climate and how we got to this stage.

The constitution, federal law, and American culture dictate in the most extreme manner that the power of the government belongs to the people through their elected ombudsmen in Congress.

The US Supreme Court took it upon themselves to state what the law says, and where the power is to be held, which is not what the founders or the constitution clearly states. In fact it is up to the court to police themselves and define where their power is and where it is not, just look at Marbury vs. Madison.

The power of government belongs to the citizens of the United States through the honestly elected congressionals, not to a bunch of elitist left wing thugs who have the OVER privilege to sit on the bench and decide how we the people should live.

Court decisions like Roe vs. Wade were completely unconstitutional where the court erroneously cited the right to privacy where the Constitution itself says nothing about abortion and thus the document left the issue and other social issues to be independently decided by state governments and state voters, not some liberal elitist thugs in Washington.

American power belongs to the people themselves through direct voter participation, elected congressional figures, and the honorably elected executive in the White House when it comes to issues of Terrorism and national emergency in the 21st century.

Issues such as Miranda rights, Map Verses Ohio, Roe vs. Wade, and other unjust rulings should be decided by state voters, state legislatures, and sovereign state governments not a bunch of elites in the Federal government.

The states have a large amount of power, and should have that power over numerous social and legal issues; Federal power is granted through the consent of the states, not the other way around.

The jaws of the American Supreme Court must be defanged, their power must be checked, and judges on all levels of the law should be held accountable to the people.

The law serves the people, the people do not serve the left wing elitist snobs who took it upon themselves to declair that they are the law.

America must remain democratic, constitutionally republican, and free for all time.

God bless the USA.

I was shocked to read the real story of what has been going on in the Supreme Court all these years. Thanks to Mark Levin to bring it out in the open.

Wow. I guess the way to the best sellers list is to: 1. ignore logical consistency; 2. ignore competing arguments; 3. distort history; 4. bash your opponents with heat, but no light. What a formula. For those interested in a serious work about the same themes, take a look at Kermit Roosevelt's book on Judicial Activism.

The antics of the Supreme Court (Supreme God ?) were quite eye opening, and who better to tell the story.....

Our population needs to start marching in front of the court building and making our opinions known.

This book points out the problems when people are appointed for life and then have NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

The detail about the cases cited and researched is amazing....the facts are scary, but important for everyone in America to understand that the Court can and does regularly take away in some way every liberty we think we posess.

A must reading......I highly recommend it.