Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

the fraudulent conduct is irrelevant; what matters is whether the conduct affects transactions within the United States. Moreover, Judge Bork’s opinion in Zoelsch questioning the conduct test but endorsing the effects test is virtually the only lower court opinion for which Justice Scalia has a kind word in Morrison. Slip Op. 10-11. I agree with and applaud this understanding of the presumption against extraterritoriality. (Ironically, my article was cited not by Scalia’s majority opinion but by Justice Stevens’s concurrence.) But Morrison sits uncomfortably alongside other opinions written by Justice Scalia...

In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday, Justice Scalia took aim once again at the use of foreign law to interpret the Constitution. While freely admitting that 18th Century English law is relevant to that exercise, he denied that modern foreign legal materials ever are. And in response to a question from Professor Julian Ku, he extended his position to reject the relevance of international law as well. As he did at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, Justice Scalia pointed out...

Justice Scalia’s passing comes as a shock and is generating tributes across ideological lines. Indeed, whether you agreed with his opinions or not (and I was not a fan of his thinking on cases like Sosa or Bond), Justice Scalia’s opinions deserved to be read. Lines like “never-say-never jurisprudence” and “oh-so-close-to-relevant cases” are some of my personal favorites. Readers should feel free to add their own in the comment section. In the meantime, I wanted to pay tribute to a side of Justice Scalia that has garnered relatively little attention...

Chuck Lane makes this case for rejecting a “cry fire” analogy on Koran burning, as suggested by Justice Breyer in a book-flacking recent interview with George Stephanopoulos. The logic is pretty clear: that where an expressive act creates an immediate danger, it’s not constitutionally protected. If the burning of a Koran in Florida was going to cost lives in Afghanistan, then maybe there is a compelling interest in suppressing the expression, or so Breyer seemed to suggest. I will defer to Chuck on how this doesn’t work under a historical...

I understand that Opinio Juris will be hosting a discussion of Benjamin Wittes’ new book, Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror (Penguin 2008) when it is released for distribution on June 19. That is a very good thing to do. I have heard Ben present material from that book and My Sources have got me an advance copy, which I am now reading, and I think it is the most important new element in the discussion of terrorism, detainees, and Guantanamo to...

...reprisal against enemy violations of the laws of war.” He is quite correct about this, of course, and it makes me realize that I wasn’t as clear as I should have been above. So let me add this response: Correct, no one considers reprisal as a response today, and certainly not against categories of protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Nor should we, let me be completely clear. But that is the point – in the contemporary period, because we have given up reprisal as a behavioral response to violations,...

on Justice Goldstone himself, however, are even more disturbing. UN Watch, a right-wing NGO, isn’t shy about expressing its disdain for him: “no one has ever disputed that the Arab-controlled Human Rights Council deliberately selected individuals who had made up their mind well in advance — not only that Israel was guilty, but that a democratic state with an imperfect but respected legal system should be considered the same as, or worse than, a terrorist group.” Their evidence for Justice Goldstone having already decided, despite his history and his reputation,...

...takes us” (emphasis added), the Obama Justice Department is relying on the very same legal analysis in order to urge a federal appeals court to reject torture claims. In fact, as the Obama Justice Department argued to that appeals court a little over a week ago, the torture law analysis in question has already been adopted by another federal appeals court. I am sympathetic to Deborah’s criticsm of McCarthy’s recent somewhat over-the-top letter rejecting an offer to participate in deliberations on detention policy with the Justice Department. But his legal...

...religion gaining a stronghold in governments now is the time for American lawyers to herald the American system of law and governance. (link). So which is it? Roger Alford Dean C. Rowan Sounds like Justice Kennedy is fashioning himself for a career shift, either to writing pulp fiction, greeting cards, advertising copy, or sermons. It's unmitigated malarkey. "Liberating force"...that's a good one. Time to reread Robert Cover's Violence and the Word. Charles Gittings Roger, I don't think I'm finding anything more than what Justice Kennedy said, though perhaps 4.5 years...

...an armed conflict. It is has been reported that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion in which it found the U.S. to be in an “armed conflict” with al Qaeda in 1998. On the other hand, the U.S. has prosecuted alleged participants in the bombings in a federal, not a military court. Given the very indistinct nature of the executive’s response and the lack of any action by Congress, it would be difficult to find these bombings and the U.S. response anything more than limited...

Scholars who believe that the individuals who wrote the OLC memos authorizing torture should be criminally prosecuted — as I do — normally cite the Justice Case, decided by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) in 1947, for the proposition that a government lawyer can be held criminally responsible for giving erroneous legal advice to his political superiors. Last year, I wrote a long post for Balkinization explaining why I believe that, in fact, the Justice Case provides much less support for that proposition than most scholars assume. As I said...

Patrick S. O'Donnell A nice illustration of an appalling lack of empathy (and sympathy, compassion, mercy and the like for that matter) among the majority Justices (in their capacity as judges and in their identity as human beings) and an outstanding example of a fundamental failure to grasp the ethical and legal meaning of the phrase "criminal justice." Moreover, it exemplifies an egregious inability to appreciate the virtues (such as they are or might be) of contemporary science. Alas, as you imply, the ruling evidences a smug commitment to ORDER...