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. ( )