I’m Now Sold On Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

Since one of the main topics of this blog deals with civil rights, I tend to keep an eye on the Supreme Court and the Justices. I currently subscribe to two SCOTUS blogs, and while they’re very informative, they’re also a good cure for insomnia. However, I also watch for news stories about the Justices and in particular their speaking engagements.  One this past weekend caught my eye.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg spoke at Ohio State University this past weekend.  The NYT covered it here.

The speech is shocking in how clearly it shows that Ms. Ginsberg is unqualified for the job she now holds.

She spent quite a bit of her speech “defending the use of foreign law by American judges”, according to the article.

Let me explain in detail what’s wrong with that idea.

Here’s the Wiktionary definition for “judge”.

judge (plural judges)

1. A public official whose duty it is to administer the law, especially by presiding over trials and rendering judgments; a justice.

And for “legislator”

legislator (plural legislators)

1. Someone who creates or enacts laws, especially a member of a legislative body.

Now, if you’re making governing decisions for the United States based on foreign law rather than existing U.S. law, which one of the two are you?

If you answered “legislator”, then you’re apparently smarter than Ms. Ginsberg.

Since she can’t be bothered to remember the definitions of these two words, perhaps she could at least be called upon to remember her oath of office?

I, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Hmmm…I see, “under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” I don’t see “under the Constitution and laws of the United States and other foreign powers.”

The Supreme Court examines cases brought to it and is the final arbiter of how the case is decided. Their primary resource is the U.S. Constitution and federal law. To judge the merits of a case based on laws from another nation grossly exceeds it’s authority and completely topples the balance of power between the three branches of government as it makes the Supreme Court the decider and implementer of the “law of the land”.

Here are a couple quotes from the Justice:

Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?

And

I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.

Well, unless the judge from abroad was citing a case in the United States and referring to U.S. law, the simple reason is that his/her opinion is entirely irrelevant.

Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this properly in his own confirmation hearings:

If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.

Another wonderful quote:

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” She predicted that “we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts.”

That doesn’t tend to agree with my 19th century study of the court, but I haven’t done the research to properly rebut such a claim. However, there’s no doubt in my mind that our 18th century founders would’ve been adamantly opposed to such a ludicrous idea.  She’s right that there should be no question about this. She’s just completely wrong in her conclusion.

Ms. Ginsberg even applied some circular logic in her reasoning, which any first year law student should know to avoid.

She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.

The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”

Ahh…so we should cite others so they’ll cite us. And why exactly, should we want them to cite us? No doubt so that we can cite them. If your head is not spinning at this point, then you’re qualified to work for Justice Ginsberg.

I doubt that Justice Ginsberg reads this blog, but she probably should. Here’s the simple truth. We shouldn’t care whether our court decisions are cited elsewhere. The same reasons that make their decisions irrelevant in our cases make our decisions irrelevant in theirs. They’re not dealing with U.S. law!

The fact that Justice Ginsberg could come to these views and have the temerity to actually speak them in public shows that she no longer has the ability to function in her role as a Supreme Court Justice.

It also makes me wonder why we even bother with nomination hearings. If someone with so little understanding of her role and the role of the court could achieve such a high level position, then clearly, I myself am qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Yes, I hold no law degree, nor have I ever studied law. But I do understand the Constitution, and my blog posts should show that I’m quite capable of thorough research on any given topic.

A Word About U.S. Intelligence In the Persian Gulf

This relates to my earlier post giving a brief historical perspective of the last 50 years or so in the region. I’ve split this out because it’s a bit more opinion oriented than that piece, which I tried to keep as factually based as possible.

Even a cursory examination of U.S. involvement in the Middle East demonstrates that our foreign intelligence and understanding of the area have been pathetically bad for quite some time.

President Carter (D-USA) was completely wrong about the Ayatollahs and how they would feel about the United States. President Reagan (R-USA) was equally wrong about Saddam Hussein.

In fact, I think these two administrations are the focal point of our problems in the area today. Each faced challenging decisions. Had they made different choices, the Persian Gulf region that President George W. Bush (R-USA) faced in 2002, would’ve been a quite different place. Not necessarily better, and not necessarily worse, but almost certainly different.

But that’s beside the point. The point is that (assuming the best of both men) both men were given faulty intelligence on the region and specific people. Both men made decisions based on this intelligence, with disastrous consequences.

So, it’s hardly surprising that in 2002-2003 we once again received faulty intelligence from the region and made (possibly) questionable decisions based on this data.

Keep that in mind when current and future Presidents make important decisions regarding the region.

Why I Haven’t Commented On ‘The Bow’

Should American Presidents bow to foreign potentates? No, of course not.

Did President Barack Obama (D-USA) bow to the King of Saudi Arabia on his trip? Don’t know. Haven’t watched the video. Don’t care.

Ok, don’t care might not be exactly true, but remember what I said on this blog last December:

I’m going to try to avoid swinging at pitches in the dirt. If I go after Mr. Obama on something, I want it to have substance. Hopefully this blog won’t get mired in pointless non-controversies like the Valerie Plame affair

Look, there’s a whole lot going on in this country to be concerned about right now. The economy, the march towards socialism, the towering national debt, taxes, health care, illegal immigration, North Korea, Iran, China, to name just a few.

I’ve got more important things to worry about and to blog about than a bow.

If Valerie Plame was a non-controversy, then this bow is barely even newsworthy. Far too many words and news cycles have been wasted on this already.

How We Got Where We Are In Iraq

A Brief History of Western Involvement in the Persian Gulf

Since, for once, I am trying to write a historical piece and not an opinion piece, I will attempt to keep it factual and not bias the history with my personal opinions, but I am human. 

You’ll find that the links here, in many cases don’t give additional information on these topics. My knowledge comes from a variety of history books and research done over the course of years on this topic, and at this time I’m not all that interested in hunting down every link to provide source context. If I have time later, I’ll update the post with that.

In the middle of the twentieth century, Great Britain and the United States decided that it was important to have a consistent ally in the Persian Gulf.  This ally would be counted upon to protect western oil interests, and to maintain some stability in a region famous for its instability.  Also, one other possible reason was to limit Communist influence in this region.  One could easily argue that the U.S and Great Britain should not meddle in the internal affairs of other governments, but one could also argue that instability in that region is in no one’s self-interest.  I’m not going to argue either side. 

Anyway, one of the results of this was something called “Operation Ajax”.  “Operation Ajax” restored the Shah of Iran to power, after he had been forced into exile by some nationalist-communist extremists in his own country. This was in 1953, under the Eisenhower administration. Some people blame all later anti-American sentiment in the region on this event, but that’s naive to say the least. There were plenty of events both before and after this to cause Islamic nations to be distrustful of the West.

The Shah was a dictator, but apparently a relatively benevolent one, at least by Middle Eastern standards.  During his rule, Iran became a very successful and rich country.  However, he was far too progressive for some Islamic extremists in his country.  He thought that women should have rights, the nerve of him!  Anyway, as he continued to move his country towards pro-Western ideas, and continued to drag them into the twentieth century, he angered more and more of the Islamic extremists.  This led to him constantly having to put down uprisings in his country, occasionally rather ruthlessly.  He also occasionally called upon support from the West to quell these uprisings.  These requests were usually granted, either openly or secretly.

Once again, one could argue that the West shouldn’t meddle in the internal affairs of a country, particularly in trying to support an increasingly dictatorial regime.  And one President did in fact argue just that.  During his administration, Jimmy Carter turned his back on the Shah.  Carter, a man of strong faith himself, felt that the uprisings backed by the Ayatollahs, the Shi’a religious leaders, might be a better fit for Western interests than this dictatorship. So he let things play out and didn’t offer any support to the Shah, and in fact, rejected requests from the Shah for such support.  One could argue that the events that followed should’ve been surprising to no one.  One could also argue that the U.S. was finally, thankfully, minding our own business.  I’m not going to argue either side.

Anyway, in 1979 or so, the Shi’ite Ayatollahs brought about a theocratic rule based on Islamic fundamentalism.  They saw the Shah’s ties to the West as a failing, and rejected any further Western influence.  Relations between the West and Iran became very tense despite the fact that the Ayatollahs really owed their rise in power to President Carter.  The Shah was exiled and President Carter refused him admittance to the United States, finally allowing a brief stopover for medical reasons.

The result of all of this was that the West lost its strong longtime ally in the region.

Now, at about this same time, Iraq was going through some upheavals of its own.  The new man rising to the top was a military man named Saddam Hussein.  Saddam Hussein promised democratic rule and a government with none of the theocratic basis of neighboring Iran. Given how poorly the theocracy had worked for the West, the Reagan administration looked to Saddam with hope for a new ally. We helped him stay afloat during the early days of his rule and helped him with the eight year long Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).  Saddam, however, was already showing his practice of saying what he thought his audience wanted to hear (a practice that would serve him well dealing with later U.N. sanctions), and then doing what he wanted.  The promised democratic elections and freedoms never came, and he eventually used some of the weapons and technology we’d given him (usually covertly) against his own people and against our other “friends” in the region.  Some of this technology was in the form of Weapons of Mass Destruction.  One could easily argue that once again the West should’ve minded its own business then Iran might’ve taken out Saddam, and he never would’ve had a WMD program to worry about later, etc.  One could also argue that given the hostility of Iran to the U.S., a re-united Persia under Ayatollah rule would’ve been the worst thing possible. Such a reunited Persia would be either first or second in the world in petroleum reserves (between 15%-20% of total). I’m not going to argue either side.

Finally, in the late 80’s and the very beginning of the 90’s, it was becoming more and more obvious that Saddam Hussein would never be the ally we had hoped for.  We cut off our support to him, and tried to limit his aggressive moves and posture.  When he invaded Kuwait, Bush 41 went to the U.N. to get them to stop this aggression.  While there was not much Arab support for this endeavor, it was passed and “Operation Desert Shield” (eventually “Operation Desert Storm”) went into effect.  This U.N. operation pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and put severe sanctions on the country for its transgressions.  One of the sanctions was that the WMD program must be shut down and the weapons dismantled, and the evidence of this must be given over to U.N. inspectors (really little more than accountants).  One could argue that once the mission of removing Iraq from Kuwait was accomplished, the goal had been met and no further direct military action should be taken.  One could also argue that Saddam Hussein had shown nothing but aggression during his rule, and this was the perfect opportunity to remove him from power.  I’m not going to argue either side.

This led to twelve years of sanctions and increasing Iraqi resistance to the sanctions. They were never fully in compliance, and repeatedly kicked out the weapons accountants, claiming that the weapons inspectors were really spies planted by Great Britain and the U.S. Then, sometime later, he would appear very conciliatory to the U.N. and promise once again to obey the sanctions. By the late 90’s it was apparent that Saddam would never comply with the sanctions, and since he’d never been the ally we’d hoped for, “regime change” in Iraq became the official policy of the U.S. government, under the Clinton administration.  By the early 2000’s it became apparent that support for continuing the sanction was dying, either because the U.N. had become tired of trying to enforce them, or because Saddam was working secretly using whatever means he had at his disposal (i.e. “bribes”) to get them lifted.  We all know what happened after that.  Now, one could argue again whether “regime change” was the right policy, or whether we should try to enforce U.N. resolutions when the U.N. doesn’t want to itself, and various other things at this point. I’m not going to argue ANY sides of this issue.

I’ve really glossed over a lot of the details.  I suggest you read further if you’re interested in more information.  However, I suggest that since there’s quite a bit of room for interpretation on many of these points that you attempt to find references that have limited slant, or balance your research with slant from both sides.

 

UPDATE: I added in a few more details, most specifically relating to a bit better dating and references to what occurred during which U.S. Presidencies.

Where Have You Gone, Mr. Jefferson?

You’ve likely seen this video elsewhere, but given the focus of this blog on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I could hardly ignore it. Even has the obligatory “Gipper” segment for those of you wishing RWR was still in charge.

 

Watch this video now. Given the political leanings of Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel, I wonder how long we’ll have it around.

Which Group Would You Prefer?

I’ve asked this question before, but it’s worth posting, I think.

Assumptions:

• Political parties want to increase their power
• The Republicans are the “party of the rich” (that’s what the media keep telling us)
• The Democrats are the “defenders of the poor and downtrodden”

Ok, now call me crazy, but it seems like to me that if the Republicans want to gain power, the best way to do it would be to make more rich people.

And if the Democrats want to gain power, the best way to to do it would be to make more poor people.

Look at their policies of the last 50 years through that lens and see what you think of them.

Now, would you rather be in a group that wants to make you poor? Or one that wants to make you rich?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Obama Looking at Tax Code Overhaul

According to Bloomberg, President Barack Obama (D-USA) is looking at ways to overhaul the tax code. I applaud the effort. It’s the first good idea I’ve heard come out of this administration.

Austan Goolsbee, a senior economic adviser to the president, will be named staff director of the task force, which will report back to Volcker, Orszag said. Members of the panel will include Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein, former chief economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton; Roger Ferguson, chief executive officer of Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve; and William Donaldson, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Orszag said “the only constraint” on the task force review is that there be no tax increases during 2009 and 2010, and that the proposals shouldn’t raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.

I’m fairly certain the results will be a dismal failure, but I’ll hold out hope.

Of course, there’s one simple way to do it and to meet Obama’s requirements and to solve our economic crisis at the same time.  Yes, I know I’m beating the FairTax dead horse, but I’ll continue to pound on this issue as long as I have this blog.

Please check out the FairTax official site. I love their new slogan:

Think of it as the World’s Biggest Economic Jumper Cables

I believe that if we are to survive as a nation, we must abolish the income tax and replace it with some sort of consumption tax. The longer we delay doing this, the worse off we’ll be. This is one place where we need to be following western Europe’s example. Most countries there have one already. Theirs tend to be VATs which is a much worse model than the FairTax, but at least it’s better than what we have now.

Congress Wants to Hold Hearings on the BCS

Wow, I’m so glad Congress is looking into this. This is such a great use of their time. And I’m sure Congress knows the best way to pick a national champion in football.

Seriously, am I the only one in the entire country that remembers the Tenth Amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Each and every elected official in Washington D.C., should have this plastered in a location where s/he is forced to read it several times a day.

Several Pictures Paint a Trillion Words

I’m tempted to steal the “money shot” (no pun intended) from this article, but it’s best if you just read the whole thing yourself.

What does one TRILLION dollars look like?

A Picture Paints a Trillion Words

This graphic from the Heritage Foundation can’t be shown on too many blogs, I think.

 

As I’ve mentioned before, I loathed the growth of government under President George W. Bush (R-USA) and his Republican cohorts in Congress. But obviously, the Republicans are just kiddies when it comes to spending our money.  The big boys are in charge now, and they won’t be satisfied until they’ve run this country into the ground.

Read the associated article, where it pokes fun at President Barack Obama’s (D-USA) pledge to halve the deficit by 2012.