Men in Black: How Judges Are Destroying America

  MEN IN BLACK

  MEN IN BLACK

  HOW THE SUPREME COURT

  IS DESTROYING AMERICA

  Mark R. Levin

  Copyright © 2005 by Mark R. Levin

  All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, or broadcast.

  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

  Levin, Mark (Mark Reed), 1957–

  Men in black: how the Supreme Court is destroying America / Mark Levin.

  p. cm.

  Includes bibliographical references and index.

  ISBN: 978-1-59698-009-9

  1. Judges—United States—Popular works. 2. Judge-made law—United States—Popular works. 3. Justice, Administration of—United States—Popular works. I. Title.

  KF8775.Z9L48 2004

  347.73’14—dc22

  2004026156

  Published in the United States by

  Regnery Publishing, Inc.

  One Massachusetts Avenue, NW

  Washington, DC 20001

  www.regnery.com

  Distributed to the trade by

  National Book Network

  Lanham, MD 20706

  For the Levin family: my wife, Kendall; our children, Lauren and Chase; my parents, Norma and Jack; and my brothers, Doug and Rob.

  CONTENTS

  FOREWORD TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

  INTRODUCTION BY RUSH LIMBAUGH

  PREFACE

  Men, Not Gods

  CHAPTER ONE

  Radicals in Robes

  CHAPTER TWO

  Judicial Review: The Counter-Revolution of 1803

  CHAPTER THREE

  In the Court We Trust?

  CHAPTER FOUR

  Death by Privacy

  CHAPTER FIVE

  Justices in the Bedroom

  CHAPTER SIX

  Endorsing Racism

  CHAPTER SEVEN

  Citizenship Up for Grabs

  CHAPTER EIGHT

  Al Qaeda Gets a Lawyer

  CHAPTER NINE

  Socialism from the Bench

  CHAPTER TEN

  Silencing Political Debate

  CHAPTER ELEVEN

  The Court Counts the Ballots

  CHAPTER TWELVE

  Liberals Stack the Bench

  CHAPTER THIRTEEN

  Restoring the Constitution

  EPILOGUE

  Opposing Tyranny

  AFTERWORD BY EDWIN MEESE III

  APPENDIX

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  NOTES

  INDEX

  FOREWORD TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

  I wrote Men in Black to warn you, my fellow citizens, that our freedoms are at risk from judges who usurp the Constitution. I wanted to help spur a national debate—as I do on my radio show—over the Supreme Court’s role, the judicial oligarchy that increasingly rules over us, and the sort of justices who should be appointed to the Court.

  Since the hardcover edition of this book appeared, President George W. Bush has successfully appointed two outstanding individuals to the Court—Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. And I believe the public is now more aware of the dangers of liberal judicial activism—and they want something done about it.

  The problem, however, remains: judges still routinely usurp power from the other branches of government and act as though they are unconstrained by the Constitution. One recent case in particular underscores the spectacular arrogance and lawlessness of the Supreme Court.

  Judicial Land Grab

  Wilhelmina Dery had lived her entire life in a house in New London, Connecticut, that her family had owned for more than one hundred years. She was born in the house in 1918. Her husband, Charles Dery, moved in after they were married in 1946. Their son and his family lived next door (in a house that was the Derys’ wedding present). Then, a few years ago, the Derys were told that the city of New London had taken title to their homes by eminent domain and that they had to leave. Eminent domain involves the government condemning and taking private property for a public use.

  One of the Derys’ neighbors, Susette Kelo, a registered nurse, found a notice of eviction on her house the day before Thanksgiving in 2000. Why was New London trying to evict them? Well, the city wanted to take their homes (claiming the neighborhood was blighted) and transfer them to private developers, purportedly to improve the area and generate more tax revenue. The Derys, Kelos, and other homeowners challenged the city’s plan and placed their hopes in the Supreme Court—often said to be our great guardian of civil liberties.

  The case has become famous for what the Supreme Court failed to do. In Kelo v. City of New London, the Court gutted a part of the Bill of Rights called the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.1 The Bill of Rights recognizes certain (albeit not all) important natural rights that we possess as human beings and seeks to ensure their protection. One of these rights is the right to own property. The takings clause provides that private property may not be “taken for public use, without just compensation.”2 Therefore, if the government takes your land to build a road or military base, it must properly compensate you.

  In Kelo the issue became the meaning of “public use.” As has happened in so many areas of the law, the Supreme Court made seemingly small, subtle changes to the clear meaning of the words. Over time, this led to dramatic departures from the Constitution’s original meaning. According to the Court’s activists, “public use” really means “public purpose.” And the phrase “public purpose” means just about whatever any government wants it to mean. Five of the nine justices voted to diminish private property rights and expand the power of government beyond its constitutional limits.3

  As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent:

  The Court has elsewhere recognized “the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic”…when the issue is…whether the government may search a home. Yet today the Court tells us that we are not to “second-guess the City’s considered judgments”…when the issue is, instead, whether the government may take the infinitely more intrusive step of tearing down petitioners’ homes. Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.” [Emphasis added]4

  While the appointment of more justices who are faithful to the Constitution—lawyers call them “originalists”—to the Court is critical, the problem is that the judiciary has relentlessly expanded its power throughout our history to dictate national policy, especially since the 1930s. The judiciary’s seizure of power has become institutionalized. And it’s the institution that must be addressed.

  Is Criticism Forbidden?

  The judicial activists who have exercised this enormous power resent any attempt to restrain their authority. They say it’s an assault on “judicial independence” and even on their personal safety. In a speech last year to appellate lawyers, then associate justice Sandra Day O’Connor complained about former House majority leader Tom DeLay (although not by name), because he dared to make the point that “judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy.” She said that death threats against judges have become increasingly common. (She then referred to Senator Jon Cornyn, again withou
t naming him, because he had complained that judicial activism might contribute to public hostility.) And she said that the “experience of developing countries, former Communist countries, and our own political culture teaches that we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies.”5

  The mere discussion of the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional excesses evoked panic from O’Connor, who conflated judicial independence with judicial supremacy, which helps explain both her years of activism on the Court and her disdain for the representative branches. O’Connor drew no line where judicial independence ends and judicial supremacy (tyranny) begins.

  I want to be clear. Threats against judges are absolutely deplorable, as are threats against any official in government. Those who make them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But I reject O’Connor’s effort to use these threats to bar debate about the judiciary’s role and to intimidate those who think the judiciary is as worthy of discussion as anything else. I have no doubt that the president is threatened frequently. However, criticism of the president, his policies, his power, and everything else about him is robust, if not extreme. And nobody suggests that the debate and criticism have led to the threats on his life.

  It’s disturbing and absurd that O’Connor would attempt to lump Court critics with the strong-arm tactics of former Communist regimes. If anything evokes the Communist Politburo model, it is not critics of the Court, but nine robed lawyers who can stand in unchallenged judgment on virtually any issue or activity in which they wish to intervene. But O’Connor is not alone in arguing for an unconstrained Supreme Court.

  On February 7, 2006, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former top lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, gave a speech in which she strenuously supported the Court’s use of foreign law in its proceedings. She denounced efforts to pass congressional resolutions that would prohibit federal courts from engaging in such unconstitutional behavior (unconstitutional because judges are limited to applying U.S. law to most cases and controversies before them). And like O’Connor, Ginsburg attempted to smear opponents of her activism by linking them to death threats. She said, in part, “These [congressional] measures recycle some resolutions and bills proposed before the 2004 elections in the United States, but never put to a vote. Although I doubt the current measures will garner sufficient votes to pass, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support. And one not-so-small concern—they fuel the irrational fringe.”6

  I and other originalists argue for a federal government with limited authority, as compelled by the Constitution—and that includes a limited, defined role for the judiciary. And most Americans who read the Constitution for themselves agree. The public is fed up with judges who use their office to exercise power they don’t have and who look outside the Constitution to foreign laws and courts for guidance. Under our republican form of government, the people, through their representatives, determine our laws, not judges. Yet Ginsburg, like O’Connor, is blinded by her arrogance and self-righteousness and cannot recognize this plain fact. She prefers to lash out at her critics while providing no evidence to support her allegation that congressional criticisms and proposals have led to threats against her or any other justice.

  The framers assumed that all three branches of government would jealously guard their power. While we see this play out every day between the executive and legislative branches, Congress has done little to restrain the judiciary. Most liberal politicians applaud judicial activism, because judges unencumbered by constitutional limitations use their activism to impose a liberal agenda on society, saving liberals the trouble of winning elections. Most libertarian scholars support an activist judiciary as a counterweight to majoritarianism, which they believe is a greater threat to liberty. And most elected Republicans prefer to complain about court decisions rather than actually do something about judicial abuse, lest they be admonished by the media, academics, and Supreme Court justices themselves.

  Former Nevada senator and Ronald Reagan confidant Paul Laxalt once told me that each day Congress meets, we lose a little bit of our liberty. I would add that each day the Supreme Court is in session, the Constitution is threatened. Of course, like Congress, the high court is not always wrong or all bad. But when the Court misfires, it does enormous damage that is extremely difficult to reverse. In the past the Supreme Court has endorsed slavery, segregation, and internment. And now it endorses the seizure of your home.

  While the people can redress congressional and executive misbehavior at the ballot box, the judiciary is unaccountable and out of reach. As I point out in this book, the concentration of so much power in a mere nine lawyers—well beyond the framers’ intent—undermines our system of government and the people’s faith in a judiciary that is so obviously out of control. Men in Black is a call to reform our judiciary and restore our constitutional government as envisioned by the framers and supported by the people.

  INTRODUCTION

  BY RUSH LIMBAUGH

  Mark “F. Lee” Levin has headed up the “legal division” of Excellence in Broadcasting for years—and for good reason. He is simply the best at what he does. He specializes in an area that is particularly close to my heart: constitutional law. Mark has eaten, breathed, and slept the United States Constitution since he was in junior high school. He loves history, especially American history, and is passionate about this nation’s constitutional heritage. He and I share the belief that this is the greatest nation in the history of the world, not because of our geographical blessings, and not even because of our diversity. America’s greatness lies in the unique system of government established by the framers to maximize our individual liberties, which has ultimately led to our national strength and prosperity.

  Mark tells me he was so fascinated with our constitutional history as a young boy that he used to visit the various historic sites in Philadelphia, where our government was born, and early on began studying our founding documents. Through the years, his love of this carefully crafted system of limited government has not diminished in the slightest, and he remains committed to doing his part to preserve it and the freedom it guarantees.

  Mark doesn’t just talk the talk. He walks the walk. That’s why he serves as president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a superb public interest law firm dedicated to “leading the fight to preserve America’s founding principles.” Landmark is the leading conservative law firm litigating for school choice—and is the National Education Association’s most feared adversary. Landmark Legal serves as the conservative movement’s top legal watchdog against government expansion and abuse, including taking on the politically correct Environmental Protection Agency. Landmark has been in the thick of the ongoing battle against voting fraud and has taken on the Internal Revenue Service.

  Mark served in the Reagan Justice Department under Attorney General Edwin Meese and has always been involved in the world of politics, mostly as a writer and pundit. Now he has his own very popular radio show on WABC in New York City, where he continues to champion the causes of limited government, the entrepreneurial spirit, and safeguarding America’s national security.

  Given his strong belief in our constitutional system, which was designed to divide and diffuse governmental power between our federal and state governments and among the three branches of our federal government, Mark has been justifiably concerned over the years as these delicate balances have been eroded. He rightly sees an unaccountable, activist federal judiciary as the primary culprit.

  Every honest observer of the political scene knows that since the 1960s, the judicial branch, led by the United States Supreme Court, has accelerated its already well-honed pattern of usurping the authority of the elected branches of government. Constitutionalists like Mark (and me) believe that the judiciary should stay out of politics and policy matters. Federal judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, all of whom are unelected and unaccountable to the people, have reje
cted their constitutional role. They increasingly legislate from the bench and rewrite the Constitution at will.

  Liberal apologists for this kind of judicial tyranny glibly protest that but for the activist Supreme Court we would still be living in the dark ages on issues from slavery to civil rights. But it was the Court that upheld slavery and segregation, setting back race relations in America for more than a century. Every time the Court arrogates power that was properly left to the other branches, it chips away at our constitutional foundation. Every time the federal courts issue rulings over internal matters of the several states, they do lasting damage to our system of federalism—and thus to the rule of law and to our liberties. Besides, judicial activists have a very poor record. They are the ones responsible for upholding such detestable and unconstitutional practices as slavery and segregation. When a small group of men and women donning black robes makes decisions beyond its authority, it is disenfranchising the will of the people, which is properly exercised through the people’s duly elected representatives.

  This trend must be reversed before it’s too late. That’s why Mark has written this incredible book: to set out in layman’s terms the current state of our runaway judiciary and the threat it poses to our nation. Mark takes us through all of today’s hot-button issues and the way they are being shaped by the Supreme Court. In each chapter, he gives us the history of the constitutional development of these issues so that we understand exactly where we are compared with where we started and where we ought to be.