.nytimes.com
The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.
Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”
One-thousand liberal law professors oppose a conservative who will be the swing SCOTUS vote on many issues they care deeply about. One who has always shown a judicial demeanor on the bench since 2006. Oh, he gets upset when his name is dragged through the mud and his family humiliated and threatened? Shocking.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Law Profs, we are post-justice at the moment in America. Surprised you hadn't noticed if you're following the nomimation process.
ReplyDeleteSo, while we appreciate the letter, it doesn't carry much more weight than the paper on which its written. And we'll include the weight of the ink to be generous.
I notice names of signators that would lead me to think a lot of Jewish law professors signed this document.
You know, Jews. People who are obligated to speak out against immorality. How many letters have they signed about the injustice of the Supreme Court finding a right in the Constitution for a man to marry a man? Eh?
To his credit, about the last remaining liberal with any dignity remaining, that being Alan Dershowitz was asked to sign and declined. He said if this were a liberal judge being treated like Kavanaugh, no way does he believe these professors would be signing such a petition. Essentially he called them hypocrites.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Orlow says ”Sorry, Law Profs, we are post-justice at the moment in America.”
ReplyDeleteBravo Joseph Orlow. This “The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)” is another NY Times hate Trump missive.
See https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Jewish-Federations-we-need-to-talk-568714
“While support for Trump and the US is low and dropping among many key US allies, particularly in Europe, Israelis adore him. And under Trump, their longstanding overwhelming support for the US has increased. The Pew study found that 83% of Israelis and 94% of Israeli Jews love America. Israel is the only country in the world where a majority – 52% – believes that under Trump, the US is doing more to solve global problems than it was in previous years.”
Please clarify why you believe it is an "injustice" to find a right in the constitution for a man to marry a man.
ReplyDeleteThis time, Reb Yehoshua, I don't think I can accomodate you. If someone takes an action that "violates every law of Man and G-d", as the expression goes, and it's not self evident, than I don't think I have much to add to the conversation that would elucidate the issue. I know my limits. Or at least, I try to know my limits.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to claim the it goes against your beliefs as to what is moral, I fully understand that. I am questioning why you think it is an injustice according to the U.S, constitution. Do you think that Frank was wrongly decided? Griswald?
ReplyDeleteFor the same reason it's against the Constitution to create death camps for Jews. Even though there is ABSOLUTELY nothing in the Constitution to prevent ratification of an Amendment to do just that.
ReplyDeletePlease clarify, because I don't understand. What does the fact that the constitution can be amended have to do with what I asked you?
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I don't have any answers.
ReplyDeleteStop obfuscating, please. I understand moral objections to same-gender marriage. You said you have constitutional ones. Please let us know what they are.
ReplyDeleteSome things are just too elemental for me to explain. I can't dowhat you request. I haven't got the ability.
ReplyDeleteRambam explains that arayos - or the laws against them are not rational. Whether this applies to mishkav zachar, I do not know. I would argue that rationally speaking, it goes against teva, however, there are sadly many who now have this as their own "teva".
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was trying to explain, but realized I really can't, is the fact that although the Constitution gives the power to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, there's a limit to how much can be read into the document, even by those who say judges are given the power to interpret the document based on changing social conditions.
I mean, if they can find in the Constitution a "right" for a man to marry a man, what right can't be found there? The whole idea of a social contract becomes meaningless once the red line has been crossed.
In a way, that fits in with your point. Some of those who create a new nature for themselves actually read into the Torah that their perversity is permitted.
It's as if these degenerates understand that G-d created the world based on Torah and thus the secret to a new distorted natural order is to distort the Torah. Or to a wild natural disorder is to tear down the Torah.
So, once again, do you also disagree with the right to privacy decided in Griswald?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to fail miserably here. I won't even call this a try. It's more like "an own goal" than a serious attempt to score a debating point.
ReplyDeleteThe men who made the U.S. Constitution based it on the Bible. Many of the Founding Fathers went to the Northern colony colleges, and part of the curriculum there was studying the "Old Testament" part of the Bible in the original Hebrew.
At least one book has been written, I was told, that discussed this. The whole idea of separating executive, legislative, and judicial powers was apparently borrowed from the Torah teaching that the king is subservient to the Torah, which in turn is interpreted by the Sanhedrin, which also has the power to make Rabbinic rules consistent with the Torah.
The Rabbi of the Shul where I go likes to ask converts what touched them that they became Jews. One convert said, if I got the story straight, that many in his immediate and extended family were in the legal profession: lawyers, judges etc. In some state like Minnesota or thereabouts, if I have it right.
This man went to Louisianna for law school and became interested in the history of law. He discovered he almost invariably ended up back in the Talmud. He decided that the Talmud is what he should be studying.
You cannot abstract the American Constitution ad infinitum. And if you do, at some point it disconnects entirely from its roots and it becomes foreign to itself. Where that point is, I don't know. But I do know we crossed it. Asking if this or that decision crossed the line isn't going to get us far.
Many decisions, even Roe v. Wade, are a mixture of "good and evil", to reference last week's Sedra. They straddle the line.
But by the time we get to forcing States to isdue same sex marriage licenses, we can be sure the line is in the rear view mirror.