Before plunking down some of the hard-earned on Men In Black, you might want to read this review by a respected legal analyst. Here's a brief sample from the review; I recommend reading the whole thing.
I use the word "book" with some hesitation: Certainly it possesses chapters and words and other book-like accoutrements. But Men in Black is 208 large-print pages of mostly block quotes (from court decisions or other legal thinkers) padded with a foreword by the eminent legal scholar Rush Limbaugh, and a blurry 10-page "Appendix" of internal memos to and from congressional Democrats—stolen during Memogate. The reason it may take you only slightly longer to read Men in Black than it took Levin to write it is that you'll experience an overwhelming urge to shower between chapters.
The argument here is not new. In fact, one of the reasons it's impossible to call Men in Black a work of legal scholarship is that there is not an original piece of analysis in it. Levin is railing against the Supreme Court for being a bunch of "activist judges" that "now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding its constitutional limitations, the legitimate role of Congress and the President, and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people." So far so good. The country needs a smart, scholarly book anatomizing for lay readers the arguments against the high court's ever-increasing involvement in political life.
But this is not that book. Men in Black never gets past the a.m.-radio bile to arrive at cogent analysis. Each of the first three chapters ends with the word "tyranny." Absent any structure or argument, this book could just have been titled Legal Decisions I Really, Really Hate. Levin follows the lead of lazy pundits everywhere who excoriate "activist judges" without precisely defining what constitutes one. He offers four random examples of "activist decisions" which mysteriously include Dred Scott v. Sandford (which was nothing of the sort) and Korematsu v. United States (a decision he trashes for its deference to executive-branch authority in wartime shortly before shredding the current Supreme Court for refusing to uphold the same principle in last summer's enemy-combatant cases). Levin rails for the first half of his book about the ways in which the high court usurps Congress and the president, then rails about the court's failure to strike down their campaign finance law.
And his attempts to draw telling distinctions between similar cases—any legal scholar's primary task—are almost laughably off-mark. Take this example: Discussing last summer's Rasul v. Bush case, Levin dismisses Justice Stevens' analysis distinguishing enemy combatants in a 1950 opinion from the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay because "the principle is the same" and "the two cases are identical in two significant respects." If judges in fact got to decide cases based solely on the fact that "the principle is the same"—that is, that each case is kinda analogous—we really would have a runaway judiciary.
Enough already. The book is silly. But the maddening question here is why Levin, Limbaugh, and -—as of yesterday, Tom DeLay—- have stopped threatening just "liberal activist" judges and have started threatening the judiciary as a whole. Levin, recall, is excoriating a court composed of seven Republican appointees. He's trashing the body that's done more to restore the primacy of states' rights, re-inject religion into public life, and limit the rights of criminal defendants than any court in decades. He seems not to have noticed that the Rehnquist court is a pretty reliably conservative entity. Reading his hysterical attacks on Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, you'd forget they are largely on his side and substantially different creatures from the court's true liberals. But Levin seems as incapable of distinguishing between jurists as he is incapable of differentiating between cases or doctrine. He's happy to decimate the court as a whole.
Serious journalists spent serious time debunking the claims set forth in the Swift Boat book, but absolutely no one seems to be taking on Levin. Serious journalists? Now who could that be? This isn't too surprising: For one thing, there's no election on the line. And for another, no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book. Nonsense. Read Robert Bork's book "The Tempting of America.: It has much in common with men in Black but much more comprehensive.
The reason it may take you only slightly longer to read Men in Blackthan it took Levin to write it is that you'll experience an overwhelming urge to shower between chapters. It was a quick read but the urge to shower is totally asinine.
The argument here is not new. In fact, one of the reasons it's impossible to call Men in Black a work of legal scholarship is that there is not an original piece of analysis in it. This is true. But it is written even for morons like crabs to understand. Â Levin is railing against the Supreme Court for being a bunch of "activist judges" that "now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding its constitutional limitations, the legitimate role of Congress and the President, and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people." So far so good. The country needs a smart, scholarly book anatomizing for lay readers the arguments against the high court's ever-increasing involvement in political life. He could try Bork's book.
Absent any structure or argument, this book could just have been titled Legal Decisions I Really, Really Hate. Nonsense.Levin follows the lead of lazy pundits everywhere who excoriate "activist judges" without precisely defining what constitutes one. Yes he does define them. This is fold type nonsense.
Levin rails for the first half of his book about the ways in which the high court usurps Congress and the president, then rails about the court's failure to strike down their campaign finance law. Levin points out how intellectually inconsistent the Court is.
And his attempts to draw telling distinctions between similar cases—any legal scholar's primary task—are almost laughably off-mark. Again, more nonsense.Take this example: Discussing last summer's Rasul v. Bushcase, Levin dismisses Justice Stevens' analysis distinguishing enemy combatants in a 1950 opinion from the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay because "the principle is the same" and "the two cases are identical in two significant respects." If judges in fact got to decide cases based solely on the fact that "the principle is the same"—that is, that each case is kinda analogous—we really wouldhave a runaway judiciary. Read it yourself because Levin is right and Dahlia Lithwick, whoever that is, is just wrong.
Â
Enough already. The book is silly. Bullshit.
Dahlia Lithwick is worse than silly.But the maddening question here is why Levin, Limbaugh, and—as of yesterday, Tom DeLay—have stopped threatening just "liberal activist" judges and have started threatening the judiciary as a whole. Levin, recall, is excoriating a court composed of seven Republican appointees. He's trashing the body that's done more to restore the primacy of states' rights, re-inject religion into public life, and limit the rights of criminal defendants than any court in decades. He seems not to have noticed that the Rehnquist court is a pretty reliably conservative entity. Reading his hysterical attacks on Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, you'd forget they are largely on his side and substantially different creatures from the court's true liberals.The hell if Kennedy and O'Connor agree with Levin But Levin seems as incapable of distinguishing between jurists as he is incapable of differentiating between cases or doctrine. He's happy to decimate the court as a whole.More nonsense. read it yourself.
, following the death of Terri Schiavo: What does this have to do with the book? nothing.
Perhaps my colleague Dan Gross is right and the
wing-nuts are simply starved for new subjects . But maybe the far-right really thinks that attacking the independence of the judiciary as a whole is a smart move. It isn't independence from the legislature that is the problem but that the the Court has declared its independence from the constitution.  Levin pays some lip service to the idea that the federal bench needs to be stacked with right-wing ideologues in his penultimate chapter. But he betrays early on his fear that even the staunchest conservative jurist is all-too-often "seduced by the liberal establishment once they move inside the Beltway." Thus, his real fixes for the problem of judicial overreaching go further than manipulating the appointments process. He wants to cut all judges off at the knees: He'd like to give force to the impeachment rules, put legislative limits on the kinds of constitutional questions courts may review, and institute judicial term limits. He'd also amend the Constitution to give congress a veto over the court's decisions. Each of which imperils the notion of an independent judiciary and of three separate, co-equal branches of government. Utter bullshit. it would just creat a check on the Court that is long overdue. But the Levins of the world are not interested in a co-equal judiciary. More bull shit.
pieter you read some real crap. Dahlia Lithwick most certainly didn't address the issues presented in the book. It was mostly a personal attack. Try to address the concepts sometime. But I am sure you are afraid to.
We've had the New Deal since FDR and we still hear conservatives claim that this is the "greatest country in the history of the world" from time to time. Methinks you and Levin doth protest too much.
Supporting the troops after they've served their country is now "wealth distribution." Turn in the flag bumper sticker and the yellow ribbon, Mr. Pseudopatriot.
And pssst! the catchphrase is "wealth redistribution."
It's often hard for me to tell what Fold is on about because of the heavy formatting. It looked like people were responding to his remark about VA benefit cuts, but scrolling back it appears that that's a second tagline. Or something. At this point I'm not sure what anyone was discussing. My bad. Carry on.
As promised I am beginning my review of Mark Levin's book Men in Black. Here is a review of the preface:Â
In the preface to Mark Levin’s book, Men in Black, the author question s why people put so much faith in judges. He points out that they are men and women just like everyone else with the same imperfections and limitations. Levin does not make the point that judges, in many instances, are themselves would-be or failed politicians. The public does not hold politicians in high esteem why should the public see judges differently?
Mr. Levin points out a number of problems with specific judges to make his point. Levin points out that physical and mental deterioration that occurs to judges as they age takes a toll on the judge’s ability to do their job. Of course the book doesn’t point to Justice Rehnquist’s health issues because the book was published last year, but it is an example that has occurred to many Supreme Court justices over the years.
However, the problem is not limited to age. Justice Story commented about the mental condition of Justice Henry Baldwin thus: Â“I am sure he cannot be sane. And indeed, the only charitable view, which I can take of any of his conduct, is that he is partially deranged at all times.”
O
ther Justices have had financial problems. Levin points to one of the first justices ending up in debtor’s prison. Another justice, Abe Fortas, was forced to resign when it was discovered he was taking a retainer form an organization that was under federal investigation. Fortas apparently lobbied the White House on various issues in favor of the organization.
And then there is the issue of race. Mr. Levin indicates the Hugo Black was a former member of the KKK and that certain of his votes on the court may have been influenced by his bias. Another justice, James McReynolds, was an open racist. He refused to associate with Justice Brandeis. He also often held a sheet of paper over his face when Justice Cardozo, another Jew, spoke in court.
Levin poses a legitimate question: why does the public hold judges in such high regard? The rest of the book is supposed to explain how the judges have gained so much power and are outside of the Constitution and how checks can be enacted to reign the Court in.
"If only we could get rid of this judge, and that judge, and make this guy a judge. We'll jerry-rig the rules, yeah, that's it. Stack the courts. Then, we'll be free."
They have the power-jones so bad it's eating 'em up.
You and you're freaking "Judges" bullshit/hatred. Man . The only people in America who believe that the Constitution needs to be Changed(as it would HAVE to be) to " Reign In Judges " are those extremists such as yourself, and that will not make any difference.
The judges are going out side of the Constitution to find support for their decisions. in so doing they violate their oath to uphold it. Â
 Neither you nor your hero Tom Delay will EVER be able to change it, so that the Courts reflect your hatreds...now plainly available for everyone to view...(above).
It can be changed. And it will be sometime. Even the Roman Empire fell.
The Courts are NOTout of control, Republican Extremists ARE...for now.
If you weren't such a dimwit you would know that they are out of control. They base their ruling on ideas that the people have never consented to.  Â
That book is obviously jaded towards the extreme right viewpoint, full of religious/racial hatred and bullshit nonsense, which you are so proudly a part of, and that is a fact , Jack.
And you won't read it because it will upset your closed little mind.
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Â
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Â
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Apr 14, 2005 at 03:17pm.]
Each side calls the other extreme. Rick, you say that the Repubs have the Executive and the Legislative and that not having the judiciary drives them crazy. But the way they see it is that the Dems are going crazy not having the Executive or the Legislative, so the only way they can get their agenda past the representatives of the people is by judicial fiat.
ARE JUDGES THE GREATEST THREAT?[Jonathan H. Adler] Here's a slight note of dissent. I certainly agree that the judiciary has strayed far beyond its proper role. But I don't share the view voiced by many conservatives that judges are the greatest threat to liberty and self-government in America today. It is the political branches that refuse to cut spending, adopt budget-busting entitlements, suppress political speech, create uncontrollable bureaucracies, authorize regulatory intrusions into everyday life, and so on. To me, this remains a far greater threat than the occasional judicial usurpation. Don't get me wrong. I think the judiciary is exceedingly important, but I also think conservatives should be careful not to overstate the judiciary's impact.
Jethro, nothing in what you just posted gives the Congress any controls over the S.C.,
What part of Article III Section 2, specifically "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make, " don't you understand?
and no right to pass any laws directed at ONE PERSON...which is what I have been saying all along.Â
Well as usual you have been wrong-all along! Congress m
ost certainly can. Have you ever heard of private laws? http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/about.htmlÂ
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 15, 2005 at 11:03am.]
So, gas is about 60-75%per gallon moreat the pump and oil is about 100% more per barrel than it was when these moaning minnies were whiningabout how much Bill Clinton and Al Gore sucked,
The Clinton "plan" was to release oil from our strategic petroleum reserves. It only served a short term goal of making him look good and made our long term goals a lot tougher to achieve.
Perhaps if the Dems are so concerned about the condition of our energy they will start to work with the president instead of filibuster his energy plans and then blame him for the problems we now face?
So then Jethro, as usual, you have been misguided all along! ( Besides being wrong.)
How was I wrong? I am sure your mind will come up with something that is totally twisted. It is fun to watch. Â
And, you obviously cannot READ. Now you could haveMAYBE named just ONEÂ example of anylaw on the books, like the SCHIAVO decision ... an order(law) from the Congress TOthe Florida Court to open and decide a case which has already been decided, 10 times ... couldn't you?
The order was to the federal court not a Florida court. Under the 14th Amendment the federal courts can review state action including court decisions for due process and equal protection violations. As for the private laws, if you do the research I am sure you can find something similar. Â
"Imagine that the interpretation of the Constitution was frozen in 1937. Imagine a country in which Social Security, job-safety laws and environmental protections were unconstitutional. Imagine judges longing for that. Imagine one of them as the next Supreme Court nominee."
and:
"... if, years from now, the Constitution is brought back from its decades of arguable exile -- and federal environmental laws are struck down, the movement's loyalists do not expect the levels of air and water pollution to rise catastrophically. They are confident that local regulations and private contracts between businesses and neighbors will determine the pollution levels that each region demands. Nor do they expect vulnerable workers to be exploited in sweatshops if labor unions are weakened: they anticipate that entrepreneurial workers in a mobile economy will bargain for the working conditions that their talents deserve. Historic districts, as they see it, will not be eviscerated if zoning laws are scaled back, but they do imagine there will be fewer brownstones and more McMansions. In exchange for these trade-offs, they insist, individual liberty -- the indispensable guarantee of self-fulfillment and happiness -- would flourish far more extensively than it does today. "
Cover story in Sunday's New York Times magazine: A copy of the Constitution frozen in a chunk of ice
Here is my only union experience: When I was much younger than I am now and still single, I got a part-time job at a local factory. I would work my normal 8 hours and then go to my 4 hour job as a janitor. The money was decent, but I was forced to join the union and pay the dues, so it wasn't much more than I would have made else where.
The full-time janitor that trained me in showed me all the good hiding spots. He got angry when I was doing in 4 hours what he stretched into 8 hours, but I felt the company paid me what we agreed on and I wanted to keep my job. I got good reviews and decent raises because of this.
After a couple of years of this, the company experienced a slow down. They had to decide who to lay-off. The company decided to lay-off the other janitor and keep me part-time since I could do the job in less time. The union that had been taking money out of my paycheck whether I liked it or not threw a fit over this because the company kept a part-timer (me) instead of the full-time guy. They threatened a strike and everything. The company finally had to cave in to their demands and layed me off instead and gave the other guy back pay.
I have been at my full-time job for 21 years now. It is non-union. Not one dime of the pay that I earn goes to the union and not one dime of the pay that I earn goes through the union to political candidates that I disagree with.Â
I have never been treated this way ever at my full-time job and in fact get treated better than the full-time folks at the union job. I have never been layed-off (company policy), my family and I have enjoyed the company cabins for free, my wife and I get yearly safety appreciation dinners at a fancy restraurant with gifts, my wife and I just got back from our 5th trip to Las Vegas (every other year) as an appreciation for my being there for 10 years or more, I got paid for 9 hours a day while I was "working" in Las Vegas, I received a crystal vase as an appreciation for my being there more than 20 years and will get one each time we go on the Vegas trip and the list goes on. They have drawings for tickets to major sporting events, the company cars are given away through a drawing when they reach 100,000 miles (roughly 4 years of service), tuition reimbursement. etc.
Please explain to me how I would be better off with the union job and keep in mind that the union place that I worked went bankrupt a few years ago.
"I have been at my full-time job for 21 years now. It is non-union. Not one dime of the pay that I earn goes to the union and not one dime of the pay that I earn goes through the union to political candidates that I disagree with. "
You can opt out of politcal donations of your dues if you're union, from what I know.
"Please explain to me how I would be better off with the union job and keep in mind that the union place that I worked went bankrupt a few years ago."
Are you asking me to explain or defend or justify a hypothetical? I can't do that.
Ask someone else. Jethro or JT will have no qualms. Look around, and you'll get the answer you want.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 18, 2005 at 07:26pm.]
You can opt out of politcal donations of your dues if you're union, from what I know.
I was never given that option. Of course, that was about 17 years ago. Maybe things have changed? I'll have to ask my wife since she works for a union shop.
If you opt out, does your dues get lowered by an equivalent amount?
Are you asking me to explain or defend or justify a hypothetical? I can't do that.
You cannot tell me how a union would better my situation, but you think that unions are the best thing around?
You are lucky, Dan
21 1/2 years ago I lived in Arkansas. I traveled to Minnesota to visit my sister. While here, I investigated several factories in the area in the hope of maybe bettering myself. I applied at the one I am with now. IÂ had 2Â interviews while I was here. After returning home, they called me for more interviews, so I moved here without any guarantee of a job.
It was not luck, but work and taking a chance that paid off. It literally changed my life forever.
"You cannot tell me how a union would better my situation, but you think that unions are the best thing around?"
No, I can't. I don't know where I said I think unions were "the best thing around," but maybe I did. Do comparable union workers get paid more? You could buy your own crystal vases, if you wanted them, and afford to vacation in Paris (birthplace of casinos and showgirls) instead of going on the company dime to Vegas. From my perspective, that would be better.
[Edited 14 times. Most recently by on Apr 19, 2005 at 05:07am.]
"Imagine that the interpretation of the Constitution was frozen in 1937. Imagine a country in which Social Security, job-safety laws and environmental protections were unconstitutional. Imagine judges longing for that. Imagine one of them as the next Supreme Court nominee."
If those programs had been unconstitutional there is a mechanism to change that. The Constitution must be strictly interpreted because it was ratified by the people and it was what they could agree to in order to live together. Ignoring the constitution just because some people think things would be better if is undemocratic.
In Chapter 1 Levin points out that the purpose of the Constitution was to prevent concentration of power. Levin believes that the only way to promote this goal is through strict construction of the Constitution. He refers to strict constructionists as orginalists and those that believe in such thing as a “living” Constitution as nonorginalists. An orginalist looks at the plain text of the document while a nonoriginalist looks at broad principles substituting their own judgment in areas where the Constitution may be silent or where the plain text does not achieve the desired result. Levin stress that an orginalist believes that the will of the people as enacted through the legislatures should control unless there is a specific provision limiting that authority. It is easy to see why since the people have the ability to change their government through elections.
Levin cites three cases as examples in which nonorginalists controlled the outcome of cases, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Fergusonand Korematsu v. United States. As we all know Dred Scott, a slave, sued to be set free. The Court ruled that slaves were property and that Congress did not provide for due process in the taking of private property. In so doing the Court in the Dred Scottdecision overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Levin states that the Court in Dred Scottignored the plain language of Article IV that gives Congress the right to govern the territories. Levin argues that the Court substituted its own preferences for the plain language of the Constitution. When it did so it undid the Missouri Compromise, a political compromise that people had agreed to in order to maintain peace.
Levin argues that in Plessy, Levin argues that the Court should have applied the plain language of the 14thAmendment regarding equal protection. Levin also noted that Louisiana statute imposed segregation on a private company. This may have been a violation of the freedom of association clause. In Korematsu the Court simply ignored any due process issues in ruling the federal government could relocate Japanese Americans during war.
Levin cited the above cases to show that the Court has imposed its own preferences on this country instead of using the plain text of the Constitution. Levin shows that this trend is continuing with specific quotes from Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy and Ginsburg specifically referencing foreign law in making their decisions or in advocating its use. Reliance on foreign insinuate principles into our law upon which the people have not given their consent.
Levin points to one statement by Justice Ginsburg that sums up this attitude well. Ginsburg said that boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding of the Constitution is sometimes necessary. What she meant was is that sometimes the Court has to disregard the will of the people and the document that the people approved to get the result the Court wants. Certainly such an attitude cannot be deemed democratic.
There's so-called judicial activists chomping at the bit on the conservative side, too. The Constitution in Exile movement was the cover story in the NYT magazine on Sunday. One of them is Richard Epstein, a professor at the University of Chicago. He wrote a book called "Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain" that made conservatives jump up and down with delight.
He's debated Antonin Scalia, and has found himself to the right of even him.
There's nothing wrong with activism when its something you agree with, it seems.
"One only has to read the opinions of the Supreme Court on economic liberties and property rights to realize that these opinions are intellectually incoherent," Epstien once said. "Some movement in in the direction of judicial activism is clearly indicated,"
Epstein used minimum wage laws and what he considered "legislative regulation of the economy" as examples when he talked about the need for judicial activism. He said judges should be more aggressive.
"There are many inappropriate statutes that cry out for a quick and easy kill," he said.
I mean, you see nothing wrong with pointing out that he IS a Jew, so what's the difference?
fold, how do you think you can carry an intellegent conversation when you can't even comprehend what the topic is?
Oh and, why don't you post a LINKto the location where you stole/borrowed  these startling-impressions from? (Hint... Rush Limbaugh bloggers)
What nonense this is. Read
the book, fold. That is what I have suggested to you all along.
Could you do that, or would you rather take credit for it?
I didn't take credit for any of it. I am telling you what Levin is saying. Can't you even grasp that fact?
There's so-called judicial activists chomping at the bit on the conservative side, too. I didn't say they weren't. In fact if you read my post regarding the first chapter of Levin's book you would have to say that both the Dred Scott and Plessy were the result of conservative activists of their time.
for pieter, fold, crabs and all other in need of education.
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5491&schedID=340
Before plunking down some of the hard-earned on Men In Black, you might want to read this review by a respected legal analyst. Here's a brief sample from the review; I recommend reading the whole thing.
Serious journalists spent serious time debunking the claims set forth in the Swift Boat book, but absolutely no one seems to be taking on Levin. Serious journalists? Now who could that be? This isn't too surprising: For one thing, there's no election on the line. And for another, no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book. Nonsense. Read Robert Bork's book "The Tempting of America.: It has much in common with men in Black but much more comprehensive.
The reason it may take you only slightly longer to read Men in Blackthan it took Levin to write it is that you'll experience an overwhelming urge to shower between chapters. It was a quick read but the urge to shower is totally asinine.
The argument here is not new. In fact, one of the reasons it's impossible to call Men in Black a work of legal scholarship is that there is not an original piece of analysis in it. This is true. But it is written even for morons like crabs to understand. Â Levin is railing against the Supreme Court for being a bunch of "activist judges" that "now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding its constitutional limitations, the legitimate role of Congress and the President, and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people." So far so good. The country needs a smart, scholarly book anatomizing for lay readers the arguments against the high court's ever-increasing involvement in political life. He could try Bork's book.
Absent any structure or argument, this book could just have been titled Legal Decisions I Really, Really Hate. Nonsense.Levin follows the lead of lazy pundits everywhere who excoriate "activist judges" without precisely defining what constitutes one. Yes he does define them. This is fold type nonsense.
Levin rails for the first half of his book about the ways in which the high court usurps Congress and the president, then rails about the court's failure to strike down their campaign finance law. Levin points out how intellectually inconsistent the Court is.
And his attempts to draw telling distinctions between similar cases—any legal scholar's primary task—are almost laughably off-mark. Again, more nonsense.Take this example: Discussing last summer's Rasul v. Bushcase, Levin dismisses Justice Stevens' analysis distinguishing enemy combatants in a 1950 opinion from the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay because "the principle is the same" and "the two cases are identical in two significant respects." If judges in fact got to decide cases based solely on the fact that "the principle is the same"—that is, that each case is kinda analogous—we really wouldhave a runaway judiciary. Read it yourself because Levin is right and Dahlia Lithwick, whoever that is, is just wrong.
Â
Enough already. The book is silly. Bullshit.
Dahlia Lithwick is worse than silly.But the maddening question here is why Levin, Limbaugh, and—as of yesterday, Tom DeLay—have stopped threatening just "liberal activist" judges and have started threatening the judiciary as a whole. Levin, recall, is excoriating a court composed of seven Republican appointees. He's trashing the body that's done more to restore the primacy of states' rights, re-inject religion into public life, and limit the rights of criminal defendants than any court in decades. He seems not to have noticed that the Rehnquist court is a pretty reliably conservative entity. Reading his hysterical attacks on Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, you'd forget they are largely on his side and substantially different creatures from the court's true liberals.The hell if Kennedy and O'Connor agree with Levin But Levin seems as incapable of distinguishing between jurists as he is incapable of differentiating between cases or doctrine. He's happy to decimate the court as a whole.More nonsense. read it yourself.
Consider Tom DeLay's
similarly broad comments from yesterday
, following the death of Terri Schiavo: What does this have to do with the book? nothing.
Perhaps my colleague Dan Gross is right and the
wing-nuts are simply starved for new subjects
. But maybe the far-right really thinks that attacking the independence of the judiciary as a whole is a smart move. It isn't independence from the legislature that is the problem but that the the Court has declared its independence from the constitution.  Levin pays some lip service to the idea that the federal bench needs to be stacked with right-wing ideologues in his penultimate chapter. But he betrays early on his fear that even the staunchest conservative jurist is all-too-often "seduced by the liberal establishment once they move inside the Beltway." Thus, his real fixes for the problem of judicial overreaching go further than manipulating the appointments process. He wants to cut all judges off at the knees: He'd like to give force to the impeachment rules, put legislative limits on the kinds of constitutional questions courts may review, and institute judicial term limits. He'd also amend the Constitution to give congress a veto over the court's decisions. Each of which imperils the notion of an independent judiciary and of three separate, co-equal branches of government. Utter bullshit. it would just creat a check on the Court that is long overdue. But the Levins of the world are not interested in a co-equal judiciary. More bull shit.
pieter you read some real crap. Dahlia Lithwick most certainly didn't address the issues presented in the book. It was mostly a personal attack. Try to address the concepts sometime. But I am sure you are afraid to.
Hey I'll tell you what, I'll do a chapter by chapter review for you and show you just how much Dahlia Lithwick was off the mark.
"destroying America"?
okay, chicken little.
We've had the New Deal since FDR and we still hear conservatives claim that this is the "greatest country in the history of the world" from time to time. Methinks you and Levin doth protest too much.
Gimme, gimme, gimme
You guys are the ones who don't want everyone to share.
Ah yes, wealth distribution, the lifeblood of the left.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Well, Fold sure got sucked in on that one. Too funny.
Â
The democratic underground? Yeah right.
Ah yes, wealth distribution, the lifeblood of the left.
What do you expect from those that can't provide for themselves?
We do know what you do. You sit back and collect a check from a bogus disability.
Supporting the troops after they've served their country is now "wealth distribution." Turn in the flag bumper sticker and the yellow ribbon, Mr. Pseudopatriot.
And pssst! the catchphrase is "wealth redistribution."
[Edited by on Apr 11, 2005 at 10:17pm.]
You're idiocy is boundless, peter.
It's often hard for me to tell what Fold is on about because of the heavy formatting. It looked like people were responding to his remark about VA benefit cuts, but scrolling back it appears that that's a second tagline. Or something. At this point I'm not sure what anyone was discussing. My bad. Carry on.
and i have oceanfront property for sale in Kansas, Fold.
fold wrote: "I do however take a dim view of
idiots
, and I suffer
fools
very badly, I must admit."
Now that explains fold's inferiority complex!
As promised I am beginning my review of Mark Levin's book Men in Black. Here is a review of the preface:Â
In the preface to Mark Levin’s book, Men in Black, the author question s why people put so much faith in judges. He points out that they are men and women just like everyone else with the same imperfections and limitations. Levin does not make the point that judges, in many instances, are themselves would-be or failed politicians. The public does not hold politicians in high esteem why should the public see judges differently?
Mr. Levin points out a number of problems with specific judges to make his point. Levin points out that physical and mental deterioration that occurs to judges as they age takes a toll on the judge’s ability to do their job. Of course the book doesn’t point to Justice Rehnquist’s health issues because the book was published last year, but it is an example that has occurred to many Supreme Court justices over the years.
However, the problem is not limited to age. Justice Story commented about the mental condition of Justice Henry Baldwin thus: Â“I am sure he cannot be sane. And indeed, the only charitable view, which I can take of any of his conduct, is that he is partially deranged at all times.”
O
ther Justices have had financial problems. Levin points to one of the first justices ending up in debtor’s prison. Another justice, Abe Fortas, was forced to resign when it was discovered he was taking a retainer form an organization that was under federal investigation. Fortas apparently lobbied the White House on various issues in favor of the organization.
And then there is the issue of race. Mr. Levin indicates the Hugo Black was a former member of the KKK and that certain of his votes on the court may have been influenced by his bias. Another justice, James McReynolds, was an open racist. He refused to associate with Justice Brandeis. He also often held a sheet of paper over his face when Justice Cardozo, another Jew, spoke in court.
Levin poses a legitimate question: why does the public hold judges in such high regard? The rest of the book is supposed to explain how the judges have gained so much power and are outside of the Constitution and how checks can be enacted to reign the Court in.
[Edited by on Apr 13, 2005 at 03:13pm.]
Conservatives have the Legislative and Executive branches. The fact that they can't control the judiciary is driving them crazy.
Wild for power, they are.
You could just hear those guys in the Senate:
"If only we could get rid of this judge, and that judge, and make this guy a judge. We'll jerry-rig the rules, yeah, that's it. Stack the courts. Then, we'll be free."
They have the power-jones so bad it's eating 'em up.
oh brother
You said it Torp.
You and you're freaking "Judges" bullshit/hatred.
Man
. The only people in America who believe that the Constitution needs to be Changed(as it would HAVE to be) to "
Reign In Judges
" are those extremists such as yourself, and that will not make any difference.
The judges are going out side of the Constitution to find support for their decisions. in so doing they violate their oath to uphold it.
Â
Â
Neither you nor your hero Tom Delay will EVER be able to change it, so that the Courts reflect your hatreds...now plainly available for everyone to view...(above).
It can be changed. And it will be sometime. Even the Roman Empire fell.
The Courts are NOTout of control, Republican Extremists ARE...for now.
If you weren't such a dimwit you would know that they are out of control. They base their ruling on ideas that the people have never consented to.
 Â
That book is obviously jaded towards the extreme right viewpoint, full of religious/racial hatred and bullshit nonsense, which you are so proudly a part of, and that is a
fact
, Jack.
And you won't read it because it will upset your closed little mind.
something for fold to try to think about:
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Â
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Â
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Apr 14, 2005 at 03:17pm.]
Each side calls the other extreme. Rick, you say that the Repubs have the Executive and the Legislative and that not having the judiciary drives them crazy. But the way they see it is that the Dems are going crazy not having the Executive or the Legislative, so the only way they can get their agenda past the representatives of the people is by judicial fiat.
I wish everyone would just calm down.
Here's a conservative quote I agree with:
ARE JUDGES THE GREATEST THREAT?[Jonathan H. Adler]
Here's a slight note of dissent. I certainly agree that the judiciary has strayed far beyond its proper role. But I don't share the view voiced by many conservatives that judges are the greatest threat to liberty and self-government in America today. It is the political branches that refuse to cut spending, adopt budget-busting entitlements, suppress political speech, create uncontrollable bureaucracies, authorize regulatory intrusions into everyday life, and so on. To me, this remains a far greater threat than the occasional judicial usurpation. Don't get me wrong. I think the judiciary is exceedingly important, but I also think conservatives should be careful not to overstate the judiciary's impact.
Jethro, nothing in what you just posted gives the Congress any controls over the S.C.,
What part of Article III Section 2, specifically "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,
with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the
Congress shall make,
" don't you understand?
and no right to pass any laws directed at ONE PERSON...which is what I have been saying all along.Â
Well as usual you have been wrong-all along! Congress m
ost certainly can. Have you ever heard of private laws?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/about.htmlÂ
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 15, 2005 at 11:03am.]
Contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are not tax deductible.
Copyright © 2004 Democratic Congressional Campaign committee. All rights reserved.
430 South Capitol Street, S.E. Washington D.C. 20003 (202)863-1500
Send comments and technical questions to support@dccc.org.
http://houseofscandal.org/topdefenders.html
A truely non-partisan look from a non-partisan website.
So, gas is about 60-75%per gallon moreat the pump and oil is about 100% more per barrel than it was when these moaning minnies were whiningabout how much Bill Clinton and Al Gore sucked,
The Clinton "plan" was to release oil from our strategic petroleum reserves. It only served a short term goal of making him look good and made our long term goals a lot tougher to achieve.
Perhaps if the Dems are so concerned about the condition of our energy they will start to work with the president instead of filibuster his energy plans and then blame him for the problems we now face?
So then Jethro, as usual, you have been misguided all along! (
Besides
being wrong.)
How was I wrong? I am sure your mind will come up with something that is totally twisted. It is fun to watch. Â
And, you obviously cannot READ.
Now you could haveMAYBE named just ONEÂ example of anylaw on the books,
like
the SCHIAVO decision ... an order(law) from the Congress TOthe Florida Court to open and decide a case which has already been decided, 10 times ... couldn't you?
The order was to the federal court not a Florida court. Under the 14th Amendment the federal courts can review state action including court decisions for due process and equal protection violations. As for the private laws, if you do the research I am sure you can find something similar. Â
[Edited by on Apr 17, 2005 at 07:00pm.]
Fold, what is your thoughts on this from the ultra-conservative L.A.Times:
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-sonsday223jun23,1,1120739.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Here is a chart to make it easier to understand:
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-06/8306315.pdf
Wild to deregulate
"Imagine that the interpretation of the Constitution was frozen in 1937. Imagine a country in which Social Security, job-safety laws and environmental protections were unconstitutional. Imagine judges longing for that. Imagine one of them as the next Supreme Court nominee."
and:
"... if, years from now, the Constitution is brought back from its decades of arguable exile -- and federal environmental laws are struck down, the movement's loyalists do not expect the levels of air and water pollution to rise catastrophically. They are confident that local regulations and private contracts between businesses and neighbors will determine the pollution levels that each region demands. Nor do they expect vulnerable workers to be exploited in sweatshops if labor unions are weakened: they anticipate that entrepreneurial workers in a mobile economy will bargain for the working conditions that their talents deserve. Historic districts, as they see it, will not be eviscerated if zoning laws are scaled back, but they do imagine there will be fewer brownstones and more McMansions. In exchange for these trade-offs, they insist, individual liberty -- the indispensable guarantee of self-fulfillment and happiness -- would flourish far more extensively than it does today. "
Cover story in Sunday's New York Times magazine: A copy of the Constitution frozen in a chunk of ice
[Edited by on Apr 18, 2005 at 03:08pm.]
Rat,
Here is my only union experience: When I was much younger than I am now and still single, I got a part-time job at a local factory. I would work my normal 8 hours and then go to my 4 hour job as a janitor. The money was decent, but I was forced to join the union and pay the dues, so it wasn't much more than I would have made else where.
The full-time janitor that trained me in showed me all the good hiding spots. He got angry when I was doing in 4 hours what he stretched into 8 hours, but I felt the company paid me what we agreed on and I wanted to keep my job. I got good reviews and decent raises because of this.
After a couple of years of this, the company experienced a slow down. They had to decide who to lay-off. The company decided to lay-off the other janitor and keep me part-time since I could do the job in less time. The union that had been taking money out of my paycheck whether I liked it or not threw a fit over this because the company kept a part-timer (me) instead of the full-time guy. They threatened a strike and everything. The company finally had to cave in to their demands and layed me off instead and gave the other guy back pay.
I have been at my full-time job for 21 years now. It is non-union. Not one dime of the pay that I earn goes to the union and not one dime of the pay that I earn goes through the union to political candidates that I disagree with.Â
I have never been treated this way ever at my full-time job and in fact get treated better than the full-time folks at the union job. I have never been layed-off (company policy), my family and I have enjoyed the company cabins for free, my wife and I get yearly safety appreciation dinners at a fancy restraurant with gifts, my wife and I just got back from our 5th trip to Las Vegas (every other year) as an appreciation for my being there for 10 years or more, I got paid for 9 hours a day while I was "working" in Las Vegas, I received a crystal vase as an appreciation for my being there more than 20 years and will get one each time we go on the Vegas trip and the list goes on. They have drawings for tickets to major sporting events, the company cars are given away through a drawing when they reach 100,000 miles (roughly 4 years of service), tuition reimbursement. etc.
Please explain to me how I would be better off with the union job and keep in mind that the union place that I worked went bankrupt a few years ago.
"I have been at my full-time job for 21 years now. It is non-union. Not one dime of the pay that I earn goes to the union and not one dime of the pay that I earn goes through the union to political candidates that I disagree with. "
You can opt out of politcal donations of your dues if you're union, from what I know.
"Please explain to me how I would be better off with the union job and keep in mind that the union place that I worked went bankrupt a few years ago."
Are you asking me to explain or defend or justify a hypothetical? I can't do that.
Ask someone else. Jethro or JT will have no qualms. Look around, and you'll get the answer you want.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 18, 2005 at 07:26pm.]
You are lucky, Dan
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to provide non-union horror stories as well. Not all non-union companies respect their employees.
You can opt out of politcal donations of your dues if you're union, from what I know.
I was never given that option. Of course, that was about 17 years ago. Maybe things have changed? I'll have to ask my wife since she works for a union shop.
If you opt out, does your dues get lowered by an equivalent amount?
Are you asking me to explain or defend or justify a hypothetical? I can't do that.
You cannot tell me how a union would better my situation, but you think that unions are the best thing around?
You are lucky, Dan
21 1/2 years ago I lived in Arkansas. I traveled to Minnesota to visit my sister. While here, I investigated several factories in the area in the hope of maybe bettering myself. I applied at the one I am with now. IÂ had 2Â interviews while I was here. After returning home, they called me for more interviews, so I moved here without any guarantee of a job.
It was not luck, but work and taking a chance that paid off. It literally changed my life forever.
Luck that you found a good company.
They tend to be a bit more liberal up in Minnesota. Sounds like a pretty liberal company.
[Edited by molegrass on Apr 18, 2005 at 09:46pm.]
"You cannot tell me how a union would better my situation, but you think that unions are the best thing around?"
No, I can't. I don't know where I said I think unions were "the best thing around," but maybe I did. Do comparable union workers get paid more? You could buy your own crystal vases, if you wanted them, and afford to vacation in Paris (birthplace of casinos and showgirls) instead of going on the company dime to Vegas. From my perspective, that would be better.
[Edited 14 times. Most recently by on Apr 19, 2005 at 05:07am.]
"Imagine that the interpretation of the Constitution was frozen in 1937. Imagine a country in which Social Security, job-safety laws and environmental protections were unconstitutional. Imagine judges longing for that. Imagine one of them as the next Supreme Court nominee."
If those programs had been unconstitutional there is a mechanism to change that. The Constitution must be strictly interpreted because it was ratified by the people and it was what they could agree to in order to live together. Ignoring the constitution just because some people think things would be better if is undemocratic.
Men In Black Chapter 1 Radicals in Robes
In Chapter 1 Levin points out that the purpose of the Constitution was to prevent concentration of power. Levin believes that the only way to promote this goal is through strict construction of the Constitution. He refers to strict constructionists as orginalists and those that believe in such thing as a “living” Constitution as nonorginalists. An orginalist looks at the plain text of the document while a nonoriginalist looks at broad principles substituting their own judgment in areas where the Constitution may be silent or where the plain text does not achieve the desired result. Levin stress that an orginalist believes that the will of the people as enacted through the legislatures should control unless there is a specific provision limiting that authority. It is easy to see why since the people have the ability to change their government through elections.
Levin cites three cases as examples in which nonorginalists controlled the outcome of cases, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Fergusonand Korematsu v. United States. As we all know Dred Scott, a slave, sued to be set free. The Court ruled that slaves were property and that Congress did not provide for due process in the taking of private property. In so doing the Court in the Dred Scottdecision overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Levin states that the Court in Dred Scottignored the plain language of Article IV that gives Congress the right to govern the territories. Levin argues that the Court substituted its own preferences for the plain language of the Constitution. When it did so it undid the Missouri Compromise, a political compromise that people had agreed to in order to maintain peace.
Levin argues that in Plessy, Levin argues that the Court should have applied the plain language of the 14thAmendment regarding equal protection. Levin also noted that Louisiana statute imposed segregation on a private company. This may have been a violation of the freedom of association clause. In Korematsu the Court simply ignored any due process issues in ruling the federal government could relocate Japanese Americans during war.
Levin cited the above cases to show that the Court has imposed its own preferences on this country instead of using the plain text of the Constitution. Levin shows that this trend is continuing with specific quotes from Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy and Ginsburg specifically referencing foreign law in making their decisions or in advocating its use. Reliance on foreign insinuate principles into our law upon which the people have not given their consent.
Levin points to one statement by Justice Ginsburg that sums up this attitude well. Ginsburg said that boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding of the Constitution is sometimes necessary. What she meant was is that sometimes the Court has to disregard the will of the people and the document that the people approved to get the result the Court wants. Certainly such an attitude cannot be deemed democratic.
[Edited by on Apr 19, 2005 at 02:59pm.]
"The Constitution must be strictly interpreted...."
How would American society be improved if it happened?
There's so-called judicial activists chomping at the bit on the conservative side, too. The Constitution in Exile movement was the cover story in the NYT magazine on Sunday. One of them is Richard Epstein, a professor at the University of Chicago. He wrote a book called "Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain" that made conservatives jump up and down with delight.
He's debated Antonin Scalia, and has found himself to the right of even him.
There's nothing wrong with activism when its something you agree with, it seems.
"One only has to read the opinions of the Supreme Court on economic liberties and property rights to realize that these opinions are intellectually incoherent," Epstien once said. "Some movement in in the direction of judicial activism is clearly indicated,"
[Edited by on Apr 20, 2005 at 05:39am.]
Epstein used minimum wage laws and what he considered "legislative regulation of the economy" as examples when he talked about the need for judicial activism. He said judges should be more aggressive.
"There are many inappropriate statutes that cry out for a quick and easy kill," he said.
The Constitution must be strictly interpreted...."
Rick: How would American society be improved if it happened?
I never pretended to be a Constitutional scholar. But I notice you didn't answer. If you're unable, that's OK.
[Edited by on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:17am.]
I mean, you see nothing wrong with pointing out that he IS a Jew, so what's the difference?
fold, how do you think you can carry an intellegent conversation when you can't even comprehend what the topic is?
Oh and, why don't you post a LINKto the location where you stole/borrowed  these startling-impressions from? (Hint... Rush Limbaugh bloggers)
What nonense this is. Read
the book, fold. That is what I have suggested to you all along.
Could you do that, or would you rather take credit for it?
I didn't take credit for any of it. I am telling you what Levin is saying. Can't you even grasp that fact?
There's so-called judicial activists chomping at the bit on the conservative side, too. I didn't say they weren't. In fact if you read my post regarding the first chapter of Levin's book you would have to say that both the Dred Scott and Plessy were the result of conservative activists of their time.
[Edited by on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:22am.]
So you have no problem with judicial activism as long as the judges you agree with are the activists?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:26am.]
I never pretended to be a Constitutional scholar. But I notice you didn't answer. If you're unable, that's OK.
So you have no problem with judicial activism as long as the judges you agree with are the activists?