Search the Lounge


« Van Tassel to Concordia | Main | Call for Authors - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Family Law Opinions »

June 27, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


One must admit this is a better attempt at something that at least resembles "scholarship." It is a fairly well done book report.

However, how much do we learn by reading these slanted book reports on Mark Levin's work?

I suspect that most readers don't know who he is, and his supposedly profound effect in the world is so significant only in the minds of zealots on the left who, for example, demonize Rush Limbaugh as the religious leader of all of those "deplorables."

FWIW, Levin's analysis is of course not accurately represented by the snips that, Twitter like, supposedly capsulize his views, but, no matter. Noone cares what Mark Levin states about the constitution, NYT bestsellers notwithstanding. We all know that surveys regularly show the voters have a dismally poor understanding of even the basics about our Constitution: and they certainly don't dwell on the little nuances in the snippets reported above.

Here is an example of the pov of the author: " the civil rights movement was a major factor in shifting the conservative racial narrative to colorblindness as the normative ideal." Any person who believes this way is simply a "conservative" hater, who believes that no calumny is too wrong or too harsh to hurl at a dull bunch of toothless racist hillbillies. (As demonstrated previously, this author butchered Bork's view of Brown; above he blithely states that Levin believes "The cases that typify non-originalism are “Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu, and Roe v. Wade” (14)." This reader relishes the cognitive dissonance in the piece.

But, again, this piece is less inflammatory and more anodyne.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Some of my best friends are Republicans and Conservatives. They have discussed "originalism." Most are not focused on civil rights, abortion or any other cultural issues. They just don't like some goofy judge letting some criminal off the hook because her rights were violated under constitutional "shadows" and "penumbras." They want judges to follow the law, not find some new "loophole."

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad