Sunday, April 03, 2005

In Defense Of Mark Levin And America

I have never met Mark Levin, I have spoken with him as a one time caller to his radio program. I have never had any correspondence with the man outside of that one brief telephone call. So consequently he didn’t ask for, nor does he have the need for me to defend him. At the same time, I didn’t ask his permission to write this, but I’m going to anyway. That’s just me, you will get used to it, or be driven insane.

I have read many reviews and heard a lot of comments on Mark’s book, Men In Black.
It strikes me that there are as many self-proclaimed conservatives trashing Mark's effort as there are liberals. The reviewers run the political gamut from communists to “Reagan Republicans”, what ever that is. It’s a given that those bent leftward would hate the book but it is surprising how many conservatives think little of the work.

Those so called conservatives are troubled by many points, from “his focus should have been on the Congress”, “his writing skills are lacking”, “ don’t get his point, where is the activism”. While it isn’t inconceivable that a conservative would find disagreement with one or more of Mr. Levin’s points, you would have to believe they at least could understand the argument.

What you will find with the “conservative” MIB detractors is that they are not conservatives. They are liberals and libertarians, which is a hybrid of liberal and anarchist. Many of which are, not surprisingly, Attorneys.
With deference to Mr. Levin and a couple others, I have yet to hear an attorney express a cognizant thought on any subject much less the Law. I wouldn’t trust a lawyer to tell the truth any more than I would trust one with a used Kleenex.

But there are others besides attorneys, like the highly educated professional book review writers at Yes indeed, these possessors of great intellect have just as much trouble understand simple sentences as do the learned barristers. It is beyond them how such a thing as judicial activism could exist in America where the constitution, a living breathing document, protects all people equally, unless you are a capitalist, Christian or Jew.
They can’t seem to grasp that education and intelligence are not the same thing.

Here are just a few examples of the reviews found on for Men In Black.

Our first reviewer had this to say.
Another of his selections is _Korematsu v. U.S._, the 1944 case in which the SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of an executive order (issued by FDR) to relocate and intern people of Japanese descent. Whatever you think of the result, surely the problem Levin has with it is that is shows undue deference to the executive. Calling this 'judicial activism' sheds no real light and even obscures the fact that the order in question came not from the judiciary but from the executive branch.
In this respect the example is typical of much of his argument. Given his focus, you'd expect his targets to be strictly judicial matters. Yet he devotes entire chapters to problems that touch only tangentially on the judiciary -- and therefore are far from showing 'How the Supreme Court [as opposed to, say, Congress] Is Destroying America'.
What this fine gentleman fails to understand is that Mr. Levin is pointing out the utter failure of the SCOTUS to provide protection of innocent Japanese Americans from the Executive branch. They are as culpable in this atrocity for failing to correct an over reaching FDR as FDR was in imprisoning lawful residents of The USA.

How about this excellent example of not getting what you paid for in higher education.
Maybe Mark Levin should take a writing class, because his book is nearly impossible to understand. I didn't study the law, but I did major in American History and have no problem reading flowery prose of great historical writers like Paine, Jefferson, or Franklin. If I could get through a Patrick O'Brian novel in 2 days, I thought I could get through anything.

This book takes the cake on being confusing. He makes no clear point on his thesis of Judicial activism. He cites case law almost continually in blockquotes that run nearly three quarters of the page. He inserts them as if they alone are supposed to make his point. Anyone who is not a lawyer will find it hard to understand.
A history major that is imminently qualified to critique the writing style of a man, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Temple University at age 19, and from Temple University Law school at age 22.
Ahh yes, his brilliant mind can easily absorb Paine, Jefferson, Franklin and O’Brian but it just doesn’t quite grasp common English. Perhaps it would have helped if Mr. Levin had thrown in a few more adjective filled sentences concerning the…umm… OH for Heavens sake genius, it’s a book about federal courts. How many flowery prose could you come up with to describe any court case?

This gentleman is as confused as the previous reviewer but can’t manage to stay on topic.
Mr. Levin approaches his subject with the presumption that courts have taken over the process of "making law". Of course, that is a completely and utterly false presumption, based on his (and his ilk's) dislike of the reality that the laws they are trying to force upon each and every American are in violation of higher law (the federal and state constitutions).

It is not the Supreme Court or other higher court's job to affirm and enforce the laws passed by legislators. It is their job to determine if the laws being passed (or which exist from previous generations) are in fact constitutional or not. When they have all the facts laid before them, and can put aside their own prejudices and ideologies (unlike justices like Thomas, Rheinquist, Scalia), they rule on the constitutionality of various legislation. Should they rule in a way that society dislikes, then the people *DO* in fact have recourse, by amending the constitution. A process that is intentionally very difficult, to ensure that current societal whims and prejudices are not constantly altering our founding document.
He then rambles on about gay marriage for a while, all the time missing the irony of his rambling.
Namely, “When they have all the facts laid before them, and can put aside their own prejudices and ideologies”
I suppose it doesn’t matter that what the court says is ultimately law, as long as they don’t gore your Ox in the process and somehow deprive you of a right you never had.
Any presumption that this fine fellow has reading and comprehension skills is completely and utterly false.
But what can you expect from his “ilk”? He tries, a typical Lib MO, to turn black into white.

Another customer who doesn’t read or comprehend very well.
I was extremely disappointed with Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America . I was hoping to find a riveting tale of judicial misconduct and abuse of government power. Sadly, all I found was the same old propaganda spewed forth by the fans of tort reform, regurgitated with a new level of hostility.

Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America is another in a long line of works bashing the judiciary for making controversial decisions. Much like the others before it, it is short on verifiable facts and figures and plentiful with political bias, ideological thinking and socialism.”

This title is merely Republican Party propaganda disguised as a factual assessment of the situation. This title reeks of yellow journalism. Its value as a literary work is rather small, but its value as award-winning propaganda is quite great. If you are looking for a title that will tell you what the GOP wants you to hear, you've probably found a winner.

But if you are after actual evidence of judicial misconduct and abuse of power, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America should be fairly close to the bottom of your list.
If the facts, presented in the judges own words doesn’t fit the bill for “riveting tales” I have to conclude that you are either a socialist and agree with the findings of “unremunerated rights” throughout the constitution or you should have spent your money on a fictional book. May I suggest “Green Eggs And Ham” by Dr. Seuss?
It’s not the controversial decisions; it’s the ILLEGAL decisions that are the whole point of the book.
The one you didn’t read.

This one has found a new method for judging books.
I took a look at this book in a bookstore; Amazon should have a "read random page" or "read page 198" feature. It's a fair way to quickly critique a book.

"Men in Black" does not pass the quick critique test. On my first flip, my eyes lit upon the words "rogue state supreme court." The context for this was that in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court stopped a "rogue state supreme court." Totally apart from any national concerns, state supreme courts get the final word on their own state constitutions. I would think that a rogue state supreme court would be pronouncing judgements on other states' laws, or maybe trampling a village or two. It's a silly phrase.

Second flip: "impose gay marriage." I remember this one from the news. No, wait, it was The Onion, and they make up their news there. The Onion had an article in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed same-sex marriage on the state, breaking up all existing marriages and randomly assigning same-sex partners. More pure nonsense, although lately so many conservatives have an increased obsession with homosexuality. Therapy, that's what needed.

This seems symptomatic of a trend in the Republican party, as their schemes become more anti-Constitutional, to blacken the actions of those charged with applying the Constitution. This book is part of a larger [anti-]intellectual project
Heaven forbid if this guy picks up a Bible.

How about this little gem.
This book tries to convince you that is a "extremist left wing" element that is using the supreme court to legislate. The arguments in this book though come from an extreme right wing perspective. The author would have us believe that there is no separation of church and state. That Americans should accept the religious right's theology. How many Americans really believe that the government should force a specific religion on all Americans. That is exactly what Levin wants. This book tries to justify the religious right's extreme theocratic desires, by pretending the US Constitution is silent on the issue of separation of church and state. It's not. It's clear that we where founded as a secular nation. Yes, there are a majority of Christians in America, and they all have the right to pray where and when they want and can hold any beliefs they want. However, it is also clear that the government and its officials while acting in their official role, represent all of us and are obliged by the law of the land ( and common sense) to keep their religious view to themselves. If you believe that government should force a specific religion on Americans, then buy this book and help support Levin. Otherwise, spend your money on something more useful. There can be no "freedom of religion" without "freedom from government promoted religion".
Can anyone guess which book this person is reviewing, I gave up.

Remember the libertarians I spoke of earlier?
I'm a conservative and a repeat Bush voter, but much of the agenda of this book isn't
all that conservative. I want a smaller less powerful government, including the powers
of the courts. I also want the government out of people's lives. But I get the
impression from the book that Levin wants the opposite.
Where does one get that impression from MIB?
If, as Levin does, you believe that the courts have no right to review laws, you are
implicitly saying that you want a system where the constitution means whatever a majority in congress says it means. Sorry. I for one don't trust congress with that kind of power. Because if you put up what the constitution
means to a majority vote, it will mean nothing.

The question I usually ask when the government wants more power is "why" or "what for".
I don't really like Levin's answers to those questions either. While I don't agree
with Roe v. Wade, I do agree that the government has no right to regulate the private
sex lives of anyone. Its not like Levin and company would stop at getting rid of
abortion. I don't think they would stop until they had all the old laws back.
Not just Sodomy laws, but laws to jail people for adultery, fornication and making
all contraception illegal again. All those rights rest in some way on the so-called
right to privacy.

As a conservative generally I would rather see people have way too many rights than
too few. Thats where Levin falls down the worst. Many of his examples deal with
the court not letting the government make things illegal. Levin kind of reverses what
tyranny used to mean. A tyranny is when a government makes you do something and uses
the law to make you do it. Now (for Levin) not allowing the government to regulate my (or others) life, to tell us
who with and how we can have consentual sex, and what we can and cannot read is tyranny.
Nowhere does the constitution give the courts the power of judicial review. The judiciary only has the authority that Congress gives it. I suppose that chapter wasn’t on your to do list.
Roe v Wade isn’t about sex. It’s about taking the lives of human beings who have not been born.
This “right”, with which you do not agree, is exactly what you don’t want the government to be able to do, regulate your private life. Think about it. The SCOTUS found the right to privacy, which doesn’t exist, and within that “right” it found that another person has the “right” to end your life before you draw your first breath.
Tyranny indeed.

There you have it. Every talking point that and People For The American Way spew is found in the examples above.
What these groups, and the reviewers don’t tell you is they hate any moral judgments.
Yes, they hate America, at least what it is. If they have their way America will be a weak, defenseless nation.
No, they don’t want the nation destroyed, just weak and in fear. This is their way of controlling the people.
Remember what the leader of the leftists, Hillary “Ramrod” Clinton, said while fund raising for another leftist in California. “We will have to take things from you for the common good”

Mark Levin has told us in plain English how they are doing the damage and the left hates him for it.
I say Mark Levin has shown his love of the United States and it’s citizens and we owe it to him and each other to do everything we can to stop the slide into the morass of human degradation that is Socialism.
To paraphrase Mr. Levin.