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.

"There are some things only intellectuals are crazy enough to believe". This quote by Orwell comes to mind when, having finished Men in Black, I read here some of its reviews. One of the most voted claims that the problem with the book is polemic "masquerading" as legal scholarship. I guess then the thirty six pages of footnotes are part of the masquerading, as well as the quotes from old decisions, new decisions and letters by the founding fathers. Give me a break.

The book is not about Levin simply showing that the federal government "has done some things" that he, Levin, does not agree with. If Levin had a problem with a government policy, he would simply discuss it. Levin may be against recreational drugs, but it does not mean that he necessarily would agree with a Supreme Court decision that supports a federal prohibition and that strips from the states the right to decide on the issue. In fact, Men in Black has for example an entire chapter on _Bush v. Gore_--a decision that Levin condemns ("the U.S. Supreme Court's unprecedented intervention to restrain [the Florida Supreme Court] will reverberate ominously for years to come") despite the fact that it helped elect the candidate he probably preferred. So if you are reasonable you will see, after several examples in the book, that one big problem today is not the types of policy pronouncements the Supreme Court makes, but rather that it makes policy pronouncements. Many of the policy pronouncements it makes are none of its business; they should come from federal/state legislatures or sometimes from the executive. And worst yet, in order to make its own pronouncements, the Court often does not follow jurisprudence. After you read Men in Black, check for example the first few pages of John Roberts' dissent in _Massachusetts v. EPA_. This issue will be evident.

Obviously the Supreme Court should not always defer to the legislatures or the executive if that would violate the plain language of the constitution. But unfortunately such deference is precisely what you find in many important decisions, like _Plessy v. Fergunson_ or _Korematsu v. U.S._. The disingenuous argue that in such cases the Court did what Mark Levin advocates because the Court was "not active". But that is rubbish. Deference that violates the constitution is judicial activism because the judiciary is acting independent of what the constitution says. Not surprisingly, sometimes a decision by the Court yields an outcome in line with the constitution, but the reasoning behind the decision has little or nothing to do with the constitution.

So you can think of judicial activism as the judiciary doing its own thing: It acts when it should not or it does not act when it should. I believe the book does a superb job in making this clear and in making the case that, if we tolerate this, what is the point of having a written constitution?