Monday, May 11, 2009
US Law and Ginsberg
"There is an old saying. 'A man who is capable of deceiving only others is not nearly as dangerous as a man who is capable of deceiving himself.' Truer words were never spoken. When a person lies, he is deceiving others about reality, but at least he knows he is engaging in deception. But when someone rationalizes--which is when you lie to yourself--he is truly lost. He then not only bends reality for others as a by-product of bending it for himself, but he can render untruths without having to lie. ... I think of this when I hear Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg tout the use of foreign law by American judges sworn to uphold the Constitution--that would be our constitution. ... Well, you know what? I believe her. She and her fellow travelers really don't understand. That is, they don't grasp the correct legal philosophy well enough to understand what they're rejecting. ... At her speech at Moritz College, Ginsberg served notice that--like so many in legal circles today--she is in fact very confused about her role on the bench. As an example of this, Adam Liptak at the New York Times tell us, 'She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the [US] Supreme Court. The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is 'probably cited more widely abroad that the [US] Supreme Court.' There is one reason for that, she said: 'You will not be listened to if you don't listen to others.' ... I once wrote that part of the problem with our judges is that they're not content to be just judges. A judge is much like a referee at a baseball game. It is not his place to make or alter the rulebook (Constitution): his is simply to determine whether or not it has been violated. His like or dislike of a rule shouldn't come into play. Yet today we have judges who would be kings. ... Why should she care if the Canadian Supreme Court is cited more than ours? Popularity doesn't equate to perspicacity. ... And foreign rulings should be irrelevant to our judges. ... The alternative to being stuck in law is being subject to the caprice of those with greater power. ... In other words, this thinking is no different from the rule of kings. ... They can wrap their living-document legal philosophy in a million pseudo-intellectual arguments. But, at the end of the day, it boils down to might makes right. ... This is why I would have far more respect for someone who overtly defies the law (think Martin Luther King and civil disobedience) and simply refuses to comply. ... If the Black Robes won't be constrained by the Constitution, why should others be constrained by their unconstitutional precedents? ... And judgments based on what? Not the Constitution, obviously. It is again merely their own judgment. ... This raises the question of why we should respect the rulings of usurpers. If they will not view the Constitution as being stuck in law, why should be view the law as being stuck in courts? ... The point is that activist judges undermine the rule of law by setting an example of contempt for it. Others are then placed in the position of asking what adherence to the rule of law really means. ... Hey, maybe Ginsberg and her fellow travellers should just be honest and boil this down to its bare essence. They could quote infamous occultist Alister Crowley and say, 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'," Selwyn Duke, 26 April 2009, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/why_the_law_is_foreign_to_gins.html.
I wonder if Ginsberg is displeased with the Supremes being infrequently cited by tribunals in: Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea? Or if she bemoans hear not having cited the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence in writing her opinions?