July 30 Column : Bork Bashes Barak
For over a decade now, as the Israeli Left has continually lost voters at the polls, there has been an antidemocratic shift of power to the Israeli Supreme Court. With the electorate increasingly and ever more clearly voting for those that promised to oppose the "peace process" and take tough action to restore security and end terrorism -- the tiny leftist elite moved to vastly increase the powers of the High Court in order to maintain control and push leftist policies of appeasement.
I write about the subject of the High Court again because I recently heard an Internet radio program on the subject that turned out to be a real eye opener. The show was on Arutz 7, which has gone online with its radio program after being shut down by the government some months ago. To my regret, I cannot give credit to the show’s host as I missed the introduction.
Mention was made on the show of Justice Robert H. Bork, who is a well-known critic of judicial activism. I was amazed to hear that he had made some harsh criticisms of the Israeli Supreme Court. I searched online and found that he had recently written a book: "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges,"
I believe that a brief biography of Bork is appropriate in order to understand the gravity of his criticism. Judge Bork was Solicitor General of the United States from 1973 to 1977; acting Attorney General from 1973 to 1974; and Circuit Judge of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1982 to 1988. He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 1987, although Senate confirmation was ultimately denied.
While Justice Bork has written extensively on judicial activism, and the usurpation of democracy in the United States by the Supreme Court, the present book addresses the international dimensions of the problem. The book focuses on three extreme cases of judicial activism on the international scene: The United Nations, Canada, and Israel.
I have not read the book yet, although I intend to very soon, but I have searched the Internet for reviews. The following is taken from one review that includes the longest and most condemning direct quote from the book that I found. Here it is:
"Israel is the supreme example of judicial imperialism securely entrenched. Bork writes: "Imagine, if you can, a supreme court that has gained the power to choose its own members, wrested control of the attorney general from the executive branch, set aside legislation and executive action when there were disagreements about policy, altered the meaning of enacted law, forbidden government action at certain times, ordered government action at other times, and claimed and exercised the authority to override national defense measures. Imagine as well a supreme court that has created a body of constitutional law despite the absence of an actual constitution. . . . Israel’s Supreme Court has done them all."
The reviewer, Richard John Neuhaus, writing for OrthodoxyToday.org, rightly identifies the anti-Jewish and antidemocratic ideology of post-Zionism as an underlying force that is directing and driving the High Court in its activism and decisions. He writes:
"The court is decidedly on the side of a post-Zionism that has broken with the founding ideas of Israel. Aharon Barak, President of the Supreme Court, has blithely decreed that, in cases of disagreement, "the views of the enlightened community in Israel" must prevail, and the court gets to decide who is and who is not "enlightened." Bork’s judgment is grim: "Israel has set a standard for judicial imperialism that can probably never be surpassed, and, one devoutly hopes, will never be equaled elsewhere. The sad irony is that the Supreme Court, operating with a Basic Law that specifies Israel’s values are both Jewish and democratic, is gradually producing an Israel that is neither Jewish nor democratic."
This indictment is astounding. The reality is degrading and despairing to thousands -- if not millions here -- but making it known is hopefully a positive step. Please read the book and discuss the issue. Awareness and discussion in America will hopefully encourage change. As you see, there is not much that can be done here.
I write about the subject of the High Court again because I recently heard an Internet radio program on the subject that turned out to be a real eye opener. The show was on Arutz 7, which has gone online with its radio program after being shut down by the government some months ago. To my regret, I cannot give credit to the show’s host as I missed the introduction.
Mention was made on the show of Justice Robert H. Bork, who is a well-known critic of judicial activism. I was amazed to hear that he had made some harsh criticisms of the Israeli Supreme Court. I searched online and found that he had recently written a book: "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges,"
I believe that a brief biography of Bork is appropriate in order to understand the gravity of his criticism. Judge Bork was Solicitor General of the United States from 1973 to 1977; acting Attorney General from 1973 to 1974; and Circuit Judge of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1982 to 1988. He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 1987, although Senate confirmation was ultimately denied.
While Justice Bork has written extensively on judicial activism, and the usurpation of democracy in the United States by the Supreme Court, the present book addresses the international dimensions of the problem. The book focuses on three extreme cases of judicial activism on the international scene: The United Nations, Canada, and Israel.
I have not read the book yet, although I intend to very soon, but I have searched the Internet for reviews. The following is taken from one review that includes the longest and most condemning direct quote from the book that I found. Here it is:
"Israel is the supreme example of judicial imperialism securely entrenched. Bork writes: "Imagine, if you can, a supreme court that has gained the power to choose its own members, wrested control of the attorney general from the executive branch, set aside legislation and executive action when there were disagreements about policy, altered the meaning of enacted law, forbidden government action at certain times, ordered government action at other times, and claimed and exercised the authority to override national defense measures. Imagine as well a supreme court that has created a body of constitutional law despite the absence of an actual constitution. . . . Israel’s Supreme Court has done them all."
The reviewer, Richard John Neuhaus, writing for OrthodoxyToday.org, rightly identifies the anti-Jewish and antidemocratic ideology of post-Zionism as an underlying force that is directing and driving the High Court in its activism and decisions. He writes:
"The court is decidedly on the side of a post-Zionism that has broken with the founding ideas of Israel. Aharon Barak, President of the Supreme Court, has blithely decreed that, in cases of disagreement, "the views of the enlightened community in Israel" must prevail, and the court gets to decide who is and who is not "enlightened." Bork’s judgment is grim: "Israel has set a standard for judicial imperialism that can probably never be surpassed, and, one devoutly hopes, will never be equaled elsewhere. The sad irony is that the Supreme Court, operating with a Basic Law that specifies Israel’s values are both Jewish and democratic, is gradually producing an Israel that is neither Jewish nor democratic."
This indictment is astounding. The reality is degrading and despairing to thousands -- if not millions here -- but making it known is hopefully a positive step. Please read the book and discuss the issue. Awareness and discussion in America will hopefully encourage change. As you see, there is not much that can be done here.
posted by Barry Freedman at 12:31 PM
2 Comments:
Since Robert Bork was never approved by Congress as a Supreme Court Justice, it is improper to refer to him as "Justice Bork". You wouldn't refer to one-time Presidential candidate Walter Mondale as "President Mondale", would you?
The propriety of referring to Georgre W. Bush as "President Bush" is a matter for another time. One suspects history will record him as 43rd* President . . . .
John,
Thanks for your comment.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "Justice" as follows 1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 3a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. b. Law The administration and procedure of law. 4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice. 5. abbr. J. Law a. A judge. b. A justice of the peace.
As you see it includes "A judge." I intended nothing else.
In regards to President Bush and the elections -- my suspicions are that he will win handily -- once the dabates starts Kerry will look pretty bad -- he has contradicted himself on almost every issue. Not a good spot to be in when those issues are debated.
Post a Comment
<< Home