Introduction by Rush Limbaugh This book couldn’t be more timely or important, as liberals continue shamelessly to thwart the people, Congress, the president, and state governments. Increasingly, liberals are also denying the president his judicial appointment power by blocking his well-qualified appointments purely for political reasons.â€¦ Let me tell you, folks, this is a subject in need of our urgent attention. And this book provides the ammunition you need to defend your liberty. (p. xi) Men, Not Gods The biggest myth about judges is that they’re somehow imbued with greater insight, wisdom, and vision than the rest of us; that for some reason God Almighty has endowed them with superior judgment about justice and fairness. But the truth is that judges are men and women with human imperfections and frailties. Some have been brilliant, principled, and moral. Others have been mentally impaired, venal, and even racist. (p. 1) Radicals in Robes Courts now second-guess the commander in chief in time of war and confer due process rights on foreign enemy combatants. They intervene in the electoral process. The Supreme Court in particular now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding its constitutional limitations, the legitimate roles of Congress and the president, and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people. The Court has broken through the firewalls constructed by the framers to limit federal and, especially, judicial power. (p. 12) The late Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall, when asked about his judicial philosophy, stated, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Marshall deserves credit for his bluntness. Many judicial activists shroud their approach in bogus legal constructs. Marshall didn’t. (p. 17) â€¦No radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And with each Supreme Court term, we hold our collective breath hoping the justices will do no further damage. (p. 22) Death by Privacy After Roe [v. Wade], Blackmun saw his role as championing a cause, not interpreting the Constitution. At the end of his career, he dramatically announced, without a trace of irony, that he was morally opposed to the death penalty. “From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death,” said the author of Roe, as if his ruling in Roe did not constitute a tinkering with the machinery of death. (p. 68) Justices in the Bedroom The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land, and the Court routinely strikes down state and federal law, and even state constitutional provisions, by invoking the federal Constitution. Given the Supreme Court’s rulings in Lawrence and Romer, a homosexual couple could plausibly argue that denying recognition of their marriage would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. In fact, “equality under the law” was the cornerstone of the Massachusetts court’s ruling. There are essentially two options available to the elected branches of government to prevent the judiciary from seizing the ultimate authority to define marriage–to amend the federal Constitution, or for Congress to pass a law denying the federal courts jurisdiction to rule on this subject. (p. 86) Endorsing Racism The Fourteenth Amendment is not about charts and indexes and statistics; the distinction the Court finds between the Grutter and Gratz admissions programs are hyper-technical. The Court seems to believe that government-sponsored racial discrimination is okay as long as it is done on an individual rather than a group basis. But where is that distinction in the Constitution? The fact that universities consider many factors in enrolling students is no excuse for including race among those factors. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provides for equal protection of all races. Government-sponsored racial discrimination violates the Constitution. (p. 98) Citizenship Up For Grabs For the last several decades, the Supreme Court has effectively trampled on Congress’s constitutionally mandated, separate, and exclusive power and taken upon itself the task of rewriting America’s immigration laws. The Court has abused its limited authority and has become, effectively, the architect of the rules governing not only how immigrants enter and remain in America, but whether those immigrants can avail themselves of social benefits that states and even Congress have sought to limit to U.S. citizens. Thanks to succeeding Supreme Courts, illegal immigrants–not legal immigrants but aliens who have broken U.S. law to enter this country–are entitled to a public school education at the U.S. taxpayers’ expense. The Court has also ruled that despite laws to the contrary, noncitizens who are legally in the U.S. can qualify for welfare, can seek tuition assistance to attend colleges and universities, and can take competitive civil service jobs and practice law. (pp. 101-102) Al Qaeda Gets A Lawyer So now, for the first time in American history, captured alien enemy combatants will have access to our courts. They will be afforded some kind of due process hearing and one day I expect they’ll have a right to competent counsel, paid for by the American taxpayer, and the right to compel testimony from the soldiers who apprehended them. Even for the Supreme Court, this is a grotesque perversion of the Constitution. (p. 127) It is difficult to win a war when the enemy is armed not only with rifles and rocket propelled grenades, but also with subpoenas, affidavits, and lawyers. And it’s difficult to maintain a republic when the judiciary abuses its constitutional authority. These cases illustrate perhaps more than any others just how dangerous and reckless an unbridled judiciary can be, not only to the Constitution, but to our national security. (p. 129) Socialism From the Bench Rather than upholding the Constitution, the Supreme Court has energetically helped Congress use the commerce clause to accumulate power at the expense of state and local authority, in direct violation of the Constitution. The framers wanted to increase commerce between the states and trade between their citizens. But the Court has turned the commerce clause into precisely the opposite–and worse: a vehicle to strengthen federal power, deny authority to the states, and deny liberty to the American people. (pp. 140-141) Protecting Virtual Pornography? The Supreme Court has gone so far as to grant constitutional protection for the distribution of virtual child pornography. In 2002, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court held sections of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) unconstitutional, specifically the prohibition on material that involved “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy stated, “Virtual child pornography is not ‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of childrenâ€¦The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.” The Court added, “The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted.”â€¦ The Supreme Court found the link between virtual child pornography and instances of child abuse too weak to justify a ban. (pp. 155-156) The Court Counts The Ballots The 2000 presidential election spawned a historic and egregious example of judicial recklessness. The Florida Supreme Court’s rogue rewriting of state election law–in a bold attempt to micromanage an election in real time–and the U.S. Supreme Court’s unprecedented intervention to restrain that court will reverberate ominously for years to come. Now defeated “win-at-all-costs” candidates and professional party operatives have an open invitation to try to influence the outcome in close elections–or even attempt to overturn the results–with the help of unelected judges. (p. 159) Liberals Stack The Bench Having deluded themselves about the 2000 presidential election by claiming that somehow Al Gore had really won, these Democrats were now committed to stopping the president from making his mark on the federal judiciary. The Boston Globe unabashedly urged political payback via judicial nominees, writing, “The Senate will have the right and the duty to examine any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court through the lens of the Court’s Bush v. Gore decision.” (p. 177) The fiercest battle will come if President Bush has the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.â€¦Radical outside groupsâ€¦will vehemently oppose any originalist–or anyone who doesn’t embrace their activist agenda.â€¦This battle will make all past judicial confirmation battles pale in comparison. And the reason is simple: The extreme left has scored few victories at the ballot box. They must rely on the tyranny of an activist judiciary to advance their policy agenda. (p. 193) Afterword by Edwin Meese, III Mark Levin served as my chief of staff when I was attorney general of the United States under President Ronald Reagan. He has been my close and loyal friend for twenty years. He’s also one of the most exceptional lawyers I’ve known. Mark’s extensive knowledge of American history, especially the nation’s founding, is second to none, as displayed in this outstanding book. (p. 209)
To purchase Men in Black, click here.