IniciGrupsConversesMésTendències
Cerca al lloc
Aquest lloc utilitza galetes per a oferir els nostres serveis, millorar el desenvolupament, per a anàlisis i (si no has iniciat la sessió) per a publicitat. Utilitzant LibraryThing acceptes que has llegit i entès els nostres Termes de servei i política de privacitat. L'ús que facis del lloc i dels seus serveis està subjecte a aquestes polítiques i termes.

Resultats de Google Books

Clica una miniatura per anar a Google Books.

S'està carregant…

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (2005)

de Mark R. Levin

Altres autors: Edwin Meese III (Epíleg), Rush Limbaugh (Introducció)

MembresRessenyesPopularitatValoració mitjanaMencions
566242,202 (4.11)3
Politics. Nonfiction. HTML:

The Supreme Court endorses terrorists' rights, flag burning, and importing foreign law. Is that in the Constitution? You're right: it's not. But these days the Constitution is no restraint on our out-of-control Supreme Court. The Court imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones purely on its own arbitrary whims. Even though liberals like John Kerry are repeatedly defeated at the polls, the majority on the allegedly "conservative" Supreme Court reflects their views and wields absolute power. There's a word for this: tyranny.

In Men in Black, radio talk-show host and legal scholar Mark R. Levin dissects the judicial tyranny that is robbing us of our freedoms and stuffing the ballot box in favor of liberal policies. As Rush Limbaugh writes in his introduction, "Men in Black is a tremendously important and compelling book."

.
… (més)
S'està carregant…

Apunta't a LibraryThing per saber si aquest llibre et pot agradar.

No hi ha cap discussió a Converses sobre aquesta obra.

» Mira també 3 mencions

Es mostren totes 2
This book addresses a topic critical to America's future, and it could be understood by the average reader. Levin makes his conservative stance transparent (as does the introduction by Rush Limbaugh and afterword by Edwin Meese). While I'm not convinced he would relegate so much to the states if current law swayed more toward his own moral views, he distinguishes between criticism and opinion sufficiently for his book to remain instructive. His main point is that the history of the Supreme Court is a constant trend toward activism over originalism. This trend violates the intent of the Constitution. It has led to increasingly complex law, supplanting the role of the legislature with a web of implications set by the courts. Rather than define the law, activist rulings continually create a need to refine the law and open up whole new paths of precedent triggered by the introduction of new concepts. For example, the 14th ammendment can be violated by a "compelling interest." I found it interesting to learn how much of the Supreme Court's expanded role was spawned from cases involving the 14th ammendment. It was leveraged in key decisions related to abortion, affirmative action, immigration, and elections. (If Republicans regret the decisions resulting from the 14th ammendment, they should note their party is solely responsible for it's wording. Amend with care.) Levin's adherence to principle breaks down somewhat in his chapter about the Court's rulings about enemy combatants. "There has been no widespread detention of U.S. citizens - only two, to the best of my knowledge - and only after an extensive vetting process" (p.122). He also seems to justify the Bush administration's steps in this matter on the basis that they aren't as extreme as the wartime detentions ordered by Lincoln and Roosevelt. Despite these criticisms, I found Levin's arguments generally understandable, principled, and balanced. He himself criticizes the Bush administration for signing McCain-Feingold. His closing chapter explores potential solutions to activism, including impeachment, Congressional limits on judicial scope, and changes to confirmation processes and tenure.

Those who support the activist rulings, do so only because they agree with the prevailing winds. When the direction shifts, they will, no doubt, decry expansive rulings as violating the appropriate role of the court. A judiciary fixed on original principles would preserve a proper balance of powers, while leaving specific laws to be written where laws should be written. ( )
  jpsnow | May 25, 2008 |
not yet finish reading=)www.richelda.com
Aquesta ressenya té una marca de diversos autors com a abús dels termes del servei i per això ja no es mostra (mostra-la).
1 vota | richestrada | Apr 6, 2009 |
Es mostren totes 2
Sense ressenyes | afegeix-hi una ressenya

» Afegeix-hi altres autors (1 possibles)

Nom de l'autorCàrrecTipus d'autorObra?Estat
Mark R. Levinautor primaritotes les edicionscalculat
Edwin Meese IIIEpílegautor secundaritotes les edicionsconfirmat
Limbaugh, RushIntroduccióautor secundaritotes les edicionsconfirmat
Has d'iniciar sessió per poder modificar les dades del coneixement compartit.
Si et cal més ajuda, mira la pàgina d'ajuda del coneixement compartit.
Títol normalitzat
Títol original
Títols alternatius
Data original de publicació
Gent/Personatges
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès. Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
Llocs importants
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès. Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
Esdeveniments importants
Pel·lícules relacionades
Epígraf
Dedicatòria
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès. Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
For the Levin family: my wife, Kendall; our children, Lauren and Chase; my parents, Norma and Jack; and my brothers, Doug and Rob.
Primeres paraules
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès. Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
America's founding fathers had a clear and profound vision for what they wanted our federal government to be.
Citacions
Darreres paraules
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès. Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
(Clica-hi per mostrar-ho. Compte: pot anticipar-te quin és el desenllaç de l'obra.)
Nota de desambiguació
Editor de l'editorial
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès. Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
Creadors de notes promocionals a la coberta
Llengua original
CDD/SMD canònics
LCC canònic

Referències a aquesta obra en fonts externes.

Wikipedia en anglès (1)

Politics. Nonfiction. HTML:

The Supreme Court endorses terrorists' rights, flag burning, and importing foreign law. Is that in the Constitution? You're right: it's not. But these days the Constitution is no restraint on our out-of-control Supreme Court. The Court imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones purely on its own arbitrary whims. Even though liberals like John Kerry are repeatedly defeated at the polls, the majority on the allegedly "conservative" Supreme Court reflects their views and wields absolute power. There's a word for this: tyranny.

In Men in Black, radio talk-show host and legal scholar Mark R. Levin dissects the judicial tyranny that is robbing us of our freedoms and stuffing the ballot box in favor of liberal policies. As Rush Limbaugh writes in his introduction, "Men in Black is a tremendously important and compelling book."

.

No s'han trobat descripcions de biblioteca.

Descripció del llibre
Sumari haiku

Debats actuals

Cap

Cobertes populars

Dreceres

Valoració

Mitjana: (4.11)
0.5
1
1.5
2 2
2.5
3 7
3.5 2
4 18
4.5 2
5 16

Ets tu?

Fes-te Autor del LibraryThing.

 

Quant a | Contacte | LibraryThing.com | Privadesa/Condicions | Ajuda/PMF | Blog | Botiga | APIs | TinyCat | Biblioteques llegades | Crítics Matiners | Coneixement comú | 204,507,271 llibres! | Barra superior: Sempre visible