Dispatches from the International Front
posted by Robert Ahdieh
I write from the 104th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, on the theme of International Law in a Time of Change. I’ve only just arrived, so can’t yet report on much of substance. As to the most important dimension of conference attendance, on the other hand, I’ve already seen previous Concurring Opinions guest bloggers Bill Burke-White and Anupam Chander, and am now sitting across a table (in the bar, of course) from David Zaring – who is furiously typing on his laptop, presumably writing a post for The Glom.
Elsewhere on the international front, Jim Maxeiner recently posted (to the Comparative Law listserv) the following quote from Chief Justice Roberts:
“I like my wine French, my beer German, my vodka Russian, and my judicial system American.”
Apparently, Roberts stated as much – not at a cocktail party – but at a panel discussion at the University of South Carolina. It was clearly intended, as such, for public consumption.
Perhaps I’m over-reacting, but does this seem like the guy who said he was just a neutral umpire, who would call them like he saw them?
March 25, 2010 at 11:29 am
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Responses (10)
Matt - March 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm
The sad truth is that it’s hard to get very good vodka in Russia. You can get cheap vodka there, but if you’re willing to spend any money you’d be better off buying something from somewhere else. (I recommend 44 North vodka, from Idaho, of all places. It’s much better than most Russian stuff, and I’m pretty sure that I have more experience drinking Russian vodka than Roberts does.) And for beer, I’d rather go Belgian, or with a dogfish head, from Delaware, than anything German. With the judicial systems I don’t feel like I have enough confidence to say what system is best.
GSM - March 25, 2010 at 1:32 pm
I think you are overreacting, he’s talking about judicial systems. Is there a reason that the Chief Justice of the United States should prefer a foreign judicial system?
David - March 26, 2010 at 8:11 am
“Perhaps I’m over-reacting, but does this seem like the guy who said he was just a neutral umpire, who would call them like he saw them?”
I think a neutral baseball umpire could state a preference for baseball over football without breaching his neutrality.
Maryland Conservatarian - March 26, 2010 at 9:05 am
yeah – you’re over-reacting…but on the plus side, you -or more specifically, the quote by CJ Roberts – got a favorable link to NRO.
p.d. - March 26, 2010 at 10:15 am
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I’m curious how Roberts’s statement in any way undercuts what he said about being a neutral umpire.
There’s plenty of real examples of him departing from the “neutral umpire” standard, but would you prefer a SCOTUS justice to express something less than a preference for the American judicial system, given his oath to uphold the Constitution? He’s not a law professor.
Robert Ahdieh - March 26, 2010 at 1:02 pm
On the question of whether I’m over-reacting, I guess my assumption is that Chief Justice Roberts did not mean simply to say that he likes the U.S. judicial system. Surely most U.S. lawyers – and even law professors – do. I assume, rather, that he was trying to say something about the benefits of maintaining the purity of the U.s. system, by excluding foreign impurities. Further, I suspect – though I am less sure of this – that he was suggesting something about our inability to learn from other systems.
With the benefit of the previous comments, I’ll concede that neither suggestion goes directly to the umpire question. They still strike me, though, as derisive, divisive, and provincial in a way that I’m not sure becomes the head of the judicial branch of the United States.
LawClerk1 - March 26, 2010 at 3:04 pm
I like my wine from California, my beer from Miliwaukee, and my judicial system from Philadelphia. And I don’t drink vodka.
A.C. - March 26, 2010 at 5:51 pm
So a federal judge who swears an oath to uphold our Constitution and no other nation’s is “derisive”, “provincial” and “divisive” because of his preference for our judicial system? Thanks for letting me know right away I don’t need to bookmark you.
SP - March 27, 2010 at 1:15 am
Roberts made clear at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing that he believed that the Supreme Court should not rely on international law to interpret the Constitution.
As reported by NPR in September 2005:
Roberts took the conservative side in an ongoing debate among the justices — and between opposing interest groups — on the use of foreign and international law in interpreting provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia has strongly criticized the practice, which a majority of justices have endorsed in recent decisions that prohibited executing juveniles and struck down laws banning gay sex.
Roberts cited “a couple of things that give me concern” about the practice. First, he said, as “a matter of democratic theory,” it is questionable to rely on a decision by a foreign judge because “no president accountable to the people appointed that judge, no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge.”
Second, Roberts said, looking to foreign law “expands the discretion” of a judge. “Relying on foreign precedents doesn’t confine judges,” Roberts said. “[In] foreign law, you can find anything you want.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4845368
george - March 28, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Just what the world needs, another flaming liberal site. Enjoy the next 3 years, because after that it will be all conservative all the time, the will of the people will once again prevail.
Leave a Reply