Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

With Justice David Souter's decision to step down from the United State's Supreme Court, speculation is rife as to whom Obama will pick as a replacement.

But, more importantly, it's an opportunity to reexamine the role of one of America's most venerable, yet controversial institutions.

The Supreme Court is exactly that - the ultimate court in the nation. Their role is in interpreting the Constitution - deciding whether laws or rulings violate the fundamental freedoms set down by the nation's founding fathers.

In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has been the target of sustained criticism - most notably from conservatives, who complain that liberal judges have used their positions to 'legislate from the bench' on notable issues.

This is actually a valid criticism - although accusations of bias go both ways. Conservative justices like Samuel Alito and John Roberts can just as easily be accused of making decisions based on their right-wing proclivities rather than the law.

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America is an in-depth analysis of the criticisms leveled at the Supreme Court, written by Reagan-administration staffer (and conservative talk-show host) Mark Levin.

While Mark Levin is an insufferable blowhard when he's behind a microphone, he does possess two things that other right-wing hacks, like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, don't - a law degree and a brain.

In 'Men in Black,' Levin accurately points out the Supreme Court's fatal flaw - that a seat on the bench has become a political position, rather than a legal one.

Each of the nine justices on the Supreme Court have their own ideas - which influence how they interpret the law.

Recently, important issues (surrounding gun control and the war on terror, for example) have been decided on 5/4 splits - with almost all of the judges ruling along 'party lines', rather than legality.

This, Mark Levin sneers, makes them guilty of deciding what the law should be, instead of what it is. It effectively takes the power of the people, as represented by their senators and congressmen, and usurps it in favor of nine unelected, unaccountable individuals each with their own political axe to grind.

The failing of Mark Levin's book, however, is that he ends up being just as subjective in his rulings as the judges he's dismissed as 'radicals in robes.'

For instance, Levin attacks the 1944 Supreme Court ruling which upheld the detainment of Japanese detainees (Korematsu v. United States) during World War II - arguing that the ruling was unconstitutional and wrong (which it was - President H. W. Bush ended up paying $1.2 billion in reparations to those Japanese detainees.)

However, he later argued against the 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (which gave Guantanamo Bay detainees habeus corpus.) Surely that's nothing short of hypocritical - denying one prisoner liberty, while defending that of another.

In the end, it's this enthusiasm for contradictory arguments which undermine the effectiveness of Levin's case. While he nails several Supreme Court rulings (like how affirmative action violates the 14th amendment's promise of 'equal protection') he's less convincing on other topics - delivering somewhat blithe arguments that he emboldens with colorful allusions to 'tyranny' and 'judicial activism.'

At the end of the day, though, Mark Levin makes a convincing point, even if he doesn't offer a viable solution. The Supreme Court has violated its mandate on several occasions and looks like it'll continue to do so in the future.

With Obama's strength in the congress and senate, whoever he picks to replace Souter will no doubt lean similarly towards the left (ironic, as Souter was originally given his position by Bush Snr.)

And while a liberal new justice might mean more Supreme Court decisions I agree with, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be the right ones.

I'm not entirely sure Mark Levin would agree with me, but I wish we lived in an America in which Aristotle's legal mandate was strictly adhered to:

The Law is Reason, Free from Passion.

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America by Mark Levin is available from Amazon for $16.95.

256 pages, ISBN-13: 978-1596980099

Supreme Court silliness

Gasp - I think I actually agree with the conservatives when it comes to their angry rants against the Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court is the highest court in America - and it's appointed justices decide the final interpretation of all sorts of important issues.

Most recently, they've made some good decisions, like securing Constitutional Rights for the remaining inmates on Guantanamo Bay and banning states from executing prisoners for non-capital crimes.

Although (to paraphrase James Bond) 'guns upset me', I also supported their decision to uphold the 2nd Amendment and lift the ban on handguns in Washington DC.

But despite making mostly the right decisions (upholding the death penalty was a mistake. Surely capital punishment is the very embodiment of 'cruel and unusual punishment) there is one worrying thing about all of the Supreme Court's decisions.

They tend to rule 5-4.

As in, five of the judges rule one way - the other four rule against the majority.

Generally, this is done on party lines - so for the 2nd Amendment issue, the four liberal justices (John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter) voted against lifting the handgun ban, while the four conservative justices, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Saluel Alito voted for it.

These two 'parties' voted on strict ideological grounds on all of the issues - so it was left to Justice Anthony Kennedy to decide the issue.

This is annoying for all sorts of reasons - first and foremost, because it shows just how vulnerable the Supreme Court system is to abuse.

As far as I'm concerned, cases like the one concerning the Guantanamo Bay inmates and the 2nd Amendment should have been clear-cut. The law is transparent and even if the Justices didn't politically agree with it, they should have voted for what the law said.

Instead, both conservative and liberal justices attempt to legislate from the bench - and overturn clear cut laws with established constitutional precedent.

At the moment, because Anthony Kennedy seems to be fairly clear headed, this is mostly working out for the better. But all it would take is another conservative Justice to tip the balance and see America's liberties poured down the drain.

Likewise, as far as Republican voters are concerned, it would be a nightmare scenario if Obama was elected president and slid another liberal Justice into the Supreme Court - because then the 4/4 split would be tipped towards the liberal's favour.

Even though I'm fairly liberal in my outlook, I don't necessarily think that would be any better for America than a conservative Supreme Court. Whether dominated by the left or the right, it's still fundamentally wrong that they try to shape the application of the law to suit their political leanings.

The Supreme Court's job is to maintain the constitution and strike down laws which violate it. They should be about LAW and JUSTICE and remain totally independent from politics.