Law Interpreters



In Men in Black, Mark Levin shows that for two centuries now the courts have grabbed ever more authority over our society, that we are ruled by an oligarchy of judges.  Marshaling an awesome amount of data from history and contemporary court cases, he illustrates conclusively that judicial activists with their thumbs on the scales of justice are nothing short of radicals in robes, contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, re-writing it in some cases with pronouncements disconnected from reality.  Using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society, they have interpreted this majestic document both as prohibiting school prayer and as protecting obscenity and abortion.

Decisions depend more on judges’ personal beliefs than they do on abstract legal ‘science.’  Critical Legal Studies (CLS) , a law society at Harvard and other elite law schools, has developed a school of thought holding that “judges decide in advance what they want, then excavate the Constitution and precedents for support to back up their preferences.  Also holding that the entire judicial edifice which gives the impression of impartiality is a fraud.”  They believe achieving true justice is impossible.

Obviously, these are not simply the opinions of a few axe-grinders.  Hear high-profile experts: Harvard Law School’s Edmund Morgan was fond of saying that “There is no proposition so absurd but that some judge, sitting on some bench, has at some time solemnly proclaimed it to be the law.”  In addition, the words of Federal Judge William J. Campbell at a Chicago judicial conference are instructive: “guilt or innocence no longer has much to do with justice, since legal technicalities take precedence in court procedure.”  Here’s Jack Anderson on judges, “Some are merely incompetent, others arrogant.  In their puffed-up importance, they demand that all considerations must yield to the majesty of their courts.  In their narrow circle of omnipotence…, etc.”

One shining exception is Robert H. Dierker, Jr., Chief Judge of Missouri Circuit Court, whose book The Tyranny of Tolerance appears in Recommended Reading in this book’s Appendix.

These criticisms do not constitute contempt of court, because they aren’t directed at our court system (essentially among the best in the world).  It is the administration of that system that is sometimes corrupted, compromised, incompetent, and unjust — beneath contempt.  Our alter-boy deference to these judges needs re-examination.

Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2017 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: March 30, 2017