Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the inevitable outcome of the judicial philosophy of Aharon Barak is an oligarchy of judges. There is no other possible outcome of such a philosophy.
Elena Kagan, Obama’s newest supreme court nominee, says Ahron Barak is her judicial hero. To say such a thing implies, at the very least, some sympathy to the judicial philosophy of the man. To be sympathetic to such a philosophy is to be ignorant of the inevitable outcome or to sympathetic to the outcome. Neither is a resounding attribute for a Supreme Court Justice.
His philosophy, that I find so onerous, is;
Judges should be able to decide if the people can change the Constitution, Judges should have the final say in all matters relating to the government, Judges should be able to change the meaning of laws (a dynamic new power), Judges should be removed by other judges only, and that no human action whatsoever is outside the discretion of the law.
In other words, Judges should decide what the Constitution means, the meaning being dynamic, they should re-interprets the meaning of the constitutions they felt necessary, they should rewrite law to suit their needs and be unaccountable to no one for anything except themselves. I ask… Why bother with the expense and trouble of the other three branches then Aharon. Simply the convenient bureaucracy? Or the illusion of freedom?
I cannot believe that everyone on the planet including Aharon Barak cannot see the inevitable outcome, the fruit if you will, of the type of philosophy. Absolute power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable, flawed human beings without limit to their time in office. Hey, The military junta that rules Myanmar should start calling themselves the Supreme Court of Myanmar. Then Aharon Barak and the rest of the Progressives would have to, logically, turn their disdain to admiration. What the tyrant calls himself effects public opinion.
I am a great admirer and follower of the philosophy of William James. His philosophy of Pragmatism is a terrific guide to understanding the good and bad in a given ethos. In his method you look at the fruit of any philosophy to determine if it is “truth” or not. If the fruit is bitter… it is sophistry. If it bears sweet fruit for humanity it is, at least a form of, truth.
Under the philosophy of Aharon Barak, the fall into the tyranny of, a faction (Lawyers) that rule for it’s self serving interests will accelerate. Within a generation that faction will have seized control in perpetuity. (After all, who is more qualified to enact law, prosecute law, control and protect the Constitution, be commander and Chief and run the lives of the people… than an attorney). Democracy will mean (like it did in ancient Rome before the overthrow or Tarquinious), that the people will get to vote for the people who install their oppressors.
The US Constitution gives too much power to Lawyers. As a result lawyers have become a defacto oligarchy. Today they control all three branches of government. Every court ruling that awards someone millions of dollars for cutting himself while breaking a window to rob some people the result is more power for the faction (Lawyers).
Putting in a person who claims Aharon Barak as a hero on the Supreme Court is dicey at best. To do it without having seen sufficient jurisprudence to show temperament from Mrs. Kagan is just plain stupid.
I expect she will win overwhelmingly… Such is the caliber of our leaders.
