 |
|
May 24, 2013
May 22, 2013
John Thorne:
They launched the 'Arab Spring' but now yearn for the good old days of a strongman
May 20, 2013
Richard A. Serrano: Is Meir Kahane's assassin now a changed man?
Melissa Healy: Genetic copies of living people from embryos no longer science fiction
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom : Jews Inducted into Rock Hall of Fame; Anton Yelchin co-stars in New "Trek" film; Kutcher (but not Kunis) visits Israel; Jewish TV Star Praises Jewish Rap Star
The Kosher Gourmet by Cathy Pollak: WARNING: This WALNUT CAKE WITH PRALINE FROSTING, perfect for afternoon coffee, is addicting
May 13, 2013
Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo: Why the giving of the document that would permanently change the world could only be done in desolation
David G. Savage: Church-state, literally? Supreme Court weighing public school graduation in a church
May 10, 2013
Rabbi Berel Wein: Be all that you should be
May 8, 2013
Peter Ford: Why China is welcoming both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinians' Abbas
Warren Richey: Obama administration quietly backs out of appeal over new contraceptive mandate
Fred Weir: At Kerry-Putin meeting, US-Russia relations thaw --- a tad
The Kosher Gourmet by Leela Cyd Ross : Almost too pretty to eat, this colorful salad with Sicilian inspiration will tickle the taste buds and delight your visual sensibility
May 6, 2013
May 3, 2013
Kids, kittens the Same? With employee perks at struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! it's hard to tell
Sandy Kleffman: Artificial kidney offers hope to patients tethered to a dialysis machine
April 29, 2013
Roy Gutman: Poland's new Jewish museum celebrates life, doesn't revisit Holocaust
Mark Clayton: Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?
Kim Murphy: Boston Bomber's 'Svengali' Revealed
Pete Spotts: Tiny satellites + cellphones = cheaper 'eyes in the sky' for NASA
April 26, 2013
Clifford D. May: Defense in the Age of Jihadist Terrorism
Sharon Palmer, R.D.: How to feel your best -- with plenty of energy, a healthy weight and optimal mental and physical function -- without driving yourself batty
April 24, 2013
|
| |
Jewish World Review
June 23, 2010
/ 11 Tamuz 5770
Relativism Rampant
By
Paul Greenberg
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
It is a time, like all times, when serious issues await debate. What may set our time apart is how unseriously those issues are debated.
Exhibit No. 1 the other day was David Souter's commencement speech at, of course, Harvard, where no theory may escape being stretched to extremes. In his address, the retired associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court didn't exactly defend Plessy v. Ferguson, the infamous 1896 decision that would establish Jim Crow as the law of the land for the next half-century. But he came perilously close to it.
David Souter did so in order to explain/justify how judges can, do and must take the social realities of their time into account when interpreting the Constitution -- as opposed to that other, more straightforward standard, a fair reading of the law.
Each approach has its limitations, and Mr. Justice Souter certainly revealed his. In an attempt to explain the difference between the Supreme Court's frame of mind in 1896 and how it had changed by 1954, when Brown v. Board of Education was handed down, the retired justice made the case for relativism as a legal philosophy.
Plessy was a landmark decision, all right, and what an ugly landmark it remains. It may have involved only seating on a public streetcar in New Orleans, but it would provide the basis for decades of injustice. The Hon. David Souter may have set out only to explain the misguided majority's state of mind in 1896, but he wound up suggesting it as a template for how constitutional decisions are and maybe should be reached:
"As I've said elsewhere, the members of the Court in Plessy remembered the day when human slavery was the law in much of the land. To that generation, the formal equality of an identical railroad car meant progress. But the generation in power in 1954 looked at enforced separation without the revolting background of slavery. … As a consequence, the judges of 1954 found a meaning in segregating the races by law that the majority of their predecessors in 1896 did not see … and when the judges in 1954 read the record of enforced segregation it carried only one possible meaning: It expressed a judgment of inherent inferiority on the part of the minority race. "
Different times, different points of view, that's all. Each is defensible in terms of its own, time-limited blinkered perceptions. Mr. Justice Souter could as easily have explained/defended Roger Taney's obscene decision in Dred Scott, which held that the black man has no rights white men need respect, can never be a citizen of the United States, and is no better than chattel property.
For that was the chief justice's (and many others') view of the "social realities" of their mid-19th-century time. Even though it ran counter to the very founding principle of this republic: that all men are created equal.
So does an exaggerated respect for the "social realities" lead judges astray. It is of course not the social realities that are to blame for such injustices, but the judges' faulty perception of them, combined with the arrogant assumption that they may turn their own interpretation of social justice into law. No matter what a fair reading of the principles underlying the Constitution, let alone the Declaration of Independence, would dictate.
Dred Scott was a great victory for the spirit of its deluded time over eternal principles of right and wrong -- as a young comer from Illinois named Lincoln would soon point out.
Justice Souter's is a relativist's view of the law gone rampant. It overlooks any number of salient points, beginning with the great dissent of John Marshall Harlan the elder, in which he predicted that Plessy would prove as infamous a decision as Dred Scott, which it did.
Why? Because, to quote from Mr. Justice Harlan's indelible dissent, "in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved."
Those words ought to be engraved somewhere in the Supreme Court's inner sancta -- if only to discourage future David Souters deciding that social justice trumps the real thing. (Whenever you hear the term Social Justice, Dear Reader, as if justice itself were not enough as the end of law, en garde! Sacred rights are about to be compromised.)
Justice Harlan's dissent in 1896 proved prophetic--not just because he foresaw the future, but, as with the Prophets of old, he proclaimed a truth that is timeless, not dependent on what today's "social reality" demands. There are some legal principles that are more than an expression of changeable ideological fashion; they are moral imperatives.
Compared to the grandeur of such a vision, it is David Souter's vapid relativism that seems simplistic. And small. His approach to the law seems quite popular with our cutting-edge liberals these days, now known as progressives. Theirs is the kind of justice that must always be modified -- by race or class or some other special interest. That is how simple justice becomes special pleading, justice becomes social justice, and the law a respecter of persons.
Even back in 1896, Justice Harlan understood the importance of maintaining a color-blind constitution, one that did not recognize race as any kind of determinant of rights. But his view is now considered dated in our age of affirmative action, racial quotas, and other forms of discrimination. Even though such proposals may be put forth in the name of not discriminating. That is the kind of newspeak the Souters of the bench deal in -- even after they have left it and are preaching at a commencement ceremony instead of in a court of law.
Of course, a wise judge will take the social context of a law into account when rendering a decision. But at the same time a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is duty-bound to recognize that he is not free to toss aside the enduring, underlying principles of the Constitution in favor of his own idea of what social reality demands. For he has taken an oath to support the Constitution, not his own view of what the times demand.
Yes, the great justice considers the times, but not only the times. It takes justices of rare wisdom to balance the demands of their era with those of timeless principles. That is what the greatest judges do -- the John Marshalls and Robert Jacksons, the Cardozos and Brandeises, the Learned Hands and Richard Arnolds. And it is what the David Souters so notably fail to do. And how proud they seem of that failure. They present their "philosophy of law" with considerable self-satisfaction, basking in a wholly self-generated aura, and invariably quote themselves. ("As I've said elsewhere…") Brother Souter committed all those embarrassments in the course of his remarkable performance at, of course, Harvard.
Paul Greenberg Archives
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing. Send your comments by clicking here.
© 2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
|
|
Arnold Ahlert
Mitch Albom
Jay Ambrose
Michael Barone
Barrywood
Lori Borgman
Stratfor Briefing
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Suzanne Fields
Christine Flowers
Frank J. Gaffney
Bernie Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg
Julia Gorin
Jonathan Gurwitz
Paul Greenberg
Argus Hamilton
Victor Davis Hanson
Betsy Hart
Ron Hart
Nat Hentoff
A. Barton Hinkle
Jeff Jacoby
Paul Johnson
Jack Kelly
Ch. Krauthammer
David Limbaugh
Kathryn Lopez
Rich Lowry
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Ann McFeatters
Dale McFeatters
Dana Milbank
Jeanne Moos
Dick Morris
Jim Mullen
Deroy Murdock
Judge A. Napolitano
Bill O'Reilly
Clarence Page
Kathleen Parker
Star Parker
Dennis Prager
Wesley Pruden
Tom Purcell
Sharon Randall
Robert Robb
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Heather Robinson
Debra J. Saunders
Martin Schram
Greg Schwem
Culture Shlock
David Shribman
Roger Simon
Lenore Skenazy
Michael Smerconish
Thomas Sowell
Ben Stein
Mark Steyn
John Stossel
Cal Thomas
Dan Thomasson
Bob Tyrrell
Diana West
Dave Weinbaum
George Will
Walter Williams
Byron York
ZeitGeist
Mort Zuckerman
Robert Arial
Chuck Asay
Baloo
Lisa Benson
Chip Bok
Dry Bones
John Branch
John Cole
J. D. Crowe
Matt Davies
John Deering
Brian Duffy
Everything's Relative
Mallard Fillmore
Glenn Foden
Jake Fuller
Bob Gorrel
Walt Handelsman
Joe Heller
David Hitch
Jerry Holbert
David Horsey
Lee Judge
Steve Kelley
Jeff Koterba
Dick Locher
Chan Lowe
Jimmy Margulies
Jack Ohman
Michael Ramirez
Rob Rogers
Drew Sheneman
Kevin Siers
Jeff Stahler
Scott Stantis
Danna Summers
Gary Varvel
Kirk Walters
Dan Wasserman
Tech Q&A
Mr. Know-It-All
Ask Doctor K
Richard Lederer
Frugal Living
On Nutrition
Bookmark These
Bruce Williams
|
