MARK "FOAMER" LEVIN & THE SUPREME COURT

In Men in Black, Mark Levin attacked the institution of the Supreme Court, especially its right to review Federal laws. This is part of the review from Publisher's Weekly:

The Supreme Court is speeding the country on the road to tyranny, according to this jeremiad from Levin, a conservative constitutional lawyer and radio talk show host. Levin argues that the Constitution is under siege by "judicial activists" obsessed with remaking America to reflect their personal political and moral philosophies. Liberal judges who view the Constitution as a document whose meaning evolves over time are at odds with the founding fathers' "clear and profound vision for what they wanted our federal government to be." "Activist judges," he says, "make, rather than interpret, the law." The author champions originalism, the conservative legal philosophy hinging on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution's text, and he contends that moving the judiciary back into the originalist fold could thwart the power grab by "radicals in robes." Levin traces trends in judicial activism through some of the Supreme Court's most famous cases, from Marbury v. Madison (1803), which enshrined the high court's power to weigh the constitutionality of presidential and congressional acts, to Roe v. Wade (1973). He also blasts affirmative action decisions, contending that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause should be sufficient to combat racial discrimination. Levin is an ardent advocate, but at times his strident tone gets in the way of objective analyses of the system's flaws. Would the founders be as "appalled" by the present-day Supreme Court as Levin is? That's impossible to say, but many like minded critics are certain to be galvanized by this spirited "clarion call," which is bookended by raves from conservative radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh and former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc

Dahlia Lithwick provided a more trenchant review:

...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.

Men in Black never gets past the a.m.-radio bile to arrive at cogent analysis.

...his attempts to draw telling distinctions between similar cases—any legal scholar's primary task—are almost laughably off-mark.

Tonight, Mark Levin went through a little of history behind Marbury v. Madison but failed to mention the Alien & Sedition Acts,the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions or the 1st Amendment. He then pivoted to a defense of the Court's power of review, something that contradicts his previous position.