Men In Black

 Men In Black

By Mark Levin

These days of 2005 are filled with charged discussion on Supreme Court nominations and Justice nominations at lower levels as well. I’ve read a few books on justice in my past; I picked this book up as a vacation reader while on the beach at Bama & Bampa’s place. It is a recent publication by an author with credentials in law and a protagonist for the Justice of constitutionalist bent, which leaves him with a rightward lean. However, please don’t let the cover or his reputation dissuade you form an easy read through judicial history. He makes a case for judicial reform and cites a trail of inept judges (for many reasons) and a history of cases, whether left or right outcome, as demonstrable evidence to put judicial activism in check.

The basic premise whereby a judicial ruling is based on the practical outcome of events as opposed to strict interpretation of our Constitution, as amended are put in an alarming context when the author makes apparent that justices are appointed for life. My current views of recent events found myself comparing ‘men in black” to the “unguided hands” vested in the mullahs of Iran. Each can overturn the powers of elected government and thwart the will of the people that government represents.

Levin describes a progressive process that began in the Marbury ruling of 1803 and has been downhill ever since. He describes an orchestrated process that includes activist groups propelling our represented government to appoint men with a presumed bias; albeit historically not so, pre or post appointment. I include the post fact because Levin demonstrates where constitutionalist judges evolve to activist decisions over time due to pressure from activists inside the beltway. In that evolutionary process Levin demonstrates the word tools judges use to stretch a new meaning or direction of the constitution. And finally Levin demonstrates where agendas of activist groups bring cases to court in a strategic way to push our democratic process further down that slippery slope.

The book is a challenge to read because it brings up current cases whereby the casual reader would find personal bias of an example case to interfere with the position being put forth by the author. In my opinion, we are by human nature easily swayed into a train of thought that would have an influence on the outcome of a person’s fate as opposed to being disciplined to our mandates of our Constitution. There are some events where a decision doesn’t even belong in our Courts. Yet the precedence set in Marbury 1803 decision allows for judicial review of democratic process to put elected decision makers in check, leaving democratic decisions vulnerable the human nature of a Supreme Arbitrator. This is common when activism looses at the ballot box. And these “Justices” often fall prey to that same instinct. Righting the wrongs of the world as “they see it.”

I recommend this book only to give today’s left or right a grounding point. While the book’s cover and introduction do not imply this I feel Levin provided enough balance to put the reader in the center. His call is not for any political agenda, but for reform in the judicial process with regard to appointments of judges. It is only a call with a couple shallow ideas as a way forward. The side affect from reading select cases leads the reader to pause and think…. could I ever be a good juror? The Murphy family is well aware of what liberties can diminish when activist agendas draw our politicians and our courts in on issues they do not belong in. Joe, I thought of you when I turned the last page. Indeed we are not fixing a social problem at your expense. How do we fix this?