Tweet
2 Countries, 2 Courts, Too Cockamamy Conclusions
http://asbarez.com/App/Asbarez/eng/2012/03/garen.jpg
Garen Yegparian
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
By now you know we took a couple of good thwacks in the judicial sphere
over the last fortnight. Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and France's Constitutional Council handed down decisions inimical
Armenian interests. But, as if that's not bad enough, both decisions don't
even make sense!
The more recent French decision is easier to address, so let's dispense
with it first. I did not have access to a translation so I have not read
the decision itself. But simplicity is elegant, as in simple solutions to
seemingly complex mathematical solutions. And here, we have such a
situation. France ALREADY has a law on the books making denial of the
Holocaust illegal. Now, the law found unconstitutional by the
Constitutional Council would have made any genocide recognized by France
illegal to deny. This is a simple, self-evidently parallel pair of
concepts. Yet, somehow, the latter law is not, in the esteemed Council's
considered opinion, constitutional (the reason given being that it curbs
freedom of speech), while the former is. Perhaps this difference arises
from Holocaust deniers only using mime, in the grand tradition of Marcel
Marceau, thus criminalizing their expressions is not really curbing speech=85
The Ninth Circuit's decision takes a little more to ditch into the dustbin
of legal drivel. The court based its decision on the `precedent'
established by three other cases it had ruled on over the last half
century. All three were use in the court's decision to bolster the
contention that the California law in question improperly interfered with
the Federal government's Constitution-based exclusive prerogative to
administer U.S. foreign policy - state and local governments are preempted
from doing so. Yet, this law which enables those cheated out of payments
by insurance companies to sue the latter for just compensation is about a
contract, not about foreign policy. The simple mention of a time frame and
historical events doesn't change that fundamental reality.
Nevertheless, the court, citing Turkey's cry-baby reactions to instances of
Genocide recognition (referring specifically to the most recent, French,
situation) chose to interpret the law as an imposition of foreign policy.
Yet, if the Armenian Genocide had not been mentioned, would the court have
found differently? Would it not have found a breach of contract between
insurer and insured? Also, if the measure of `establishing foreign policy'
is the loud, over-reaction of a foreign government, where will the line be
drawn? If China decides to whine over civil rights, environmental, labor,
or other human-needs based laws that impact on its export oriented
manufacturing juggernaut, will the court interpret those as the
establishment of foreign policy by whatever agency(ies) has(ve) passed them?
Both the French and American cases reek of political influence on the
judiciary. The French case is glaring - Turkey raises a hue and cry, the
Constitutional Counsel makes a finding with a result that is inconsistent
with the undergirding of an existing law, as explained above. In the
American case, the political influence is a bit less obvious. It would
probably be a useful exercise to have a law student research the
background, thinking, appointer (which president), and judicial voting
histories of the judges who ruled on the on this case. But even without
that the tenuous logic and fact that Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of
State knew about the decision, speak volumes about the arm twisting that
must have occurred behind the scenes.
Shame on the judges in both countries who have sullied the ideal of blind
justice! Don't let them get away with it. Write them letters expressing
your indignation and concern over inappropriate political meddling in the
judicial process and their succumbing to it.
http://asbarez.com/101344/2-countries-2-courts-too-cockamamy-conclusions/
From: A. Papazian
http://asbarez.com/App/Asbarez/eng/2012/03/garen.jpg
Garen Yegparian
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
By now you know we took a couple of good thwacks in the judicial sphere
over the last fortnight. Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and France's Constitutional Council handed down decisions inimical
Armenian interests. But, as if that's not bad enough, both decisions don't
even make sense!
The more recent French decision is easier to address, so let's dispense
with it first. I did not have access to a translation so I have not read
the decision itself. But simplicity is elegant, as in simple solutions to
seemingly complex mathematical solutions. And here, we have such a
situation. France ALREADY has a law on the books making denial of the
Holocaust illegal. Now, the law found unconstitutional by the
Constitutional Council would have made any genocide recognized by France
illegal to deny. This is a simple, self-evidently parallel pair of
concepts. Yet, somehow, the latter law is not, in the esteemed Council's
considered opinion, constitutional (the reason given being that it curbs
freedom of speech), while the former is. Perhaps this difference arises
from Holocaust deniers only using mime, in the grand tradition of Marcel
Marceau, thus criminalizing their expressions is not really curbing speech=85
The Ninth Circuit's decision takes a little more to ditch into the dustbin
of legal drivel. The court based its decision on the `precedent'
established by three other cases it had ruled on over the last half
century. All three were use in the court's decision to bolster the
contention that the California law in question improperly interfered with
the Federal government's Constitution-based exclusive prerogative to
administer U.S. foreign policy - state and local governments are preempted
from doing so. Yet, this law which enables those cheated out of payments
by insurance companies to sue the latter for just compensation is about a
contract, not about foreign policy. The simple mention of a time frame and
historical events doesn't change that fundamental reality.
Nevertheless, the court, citing Turkey's cry-baby reactions to instances of
Genocide recognition (referring specifically to the most recent, French,
situation) chose to interpret the law as an imposition of foreign policy.
Yet, if the Armenian Genocide had not been mentioned, would the court have
found differently? Would it not have found a breach of contract between
insurer and insured? Also, if the measure of `establishing foreign policy'
is the loud, over-reaction of a foreign government, where will the line be
drawn? If China decides to whine over civil rights, environmental, labor,
or other human-needs based laws that impact on its export oriented
manufacturing juggernaut, will the court interpret those as the
establishment of foreign policy by whatever agency(ies) has(ve) passed them?
Both the French and American cases reek of political influence on the
judiciary. The French case is glaring - Turkey raises a hue and cry, the
Constitutional Counsel makes a finding with a result that is inconsistent
with the undergirding of an existing law, as explained above. In the
American case, the political influence is a bit less obvious. It would
probably be a useful exercise to have a law student research the
background, thinking, appointer (which president), and judicial voting
histories of the judges who ruled on the on this case. But even without
that the tenuous logic and fact that Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of
State knew about the decision, speak volumes about the arm twisting that
must have occurred behind the scenes.
Shame on the judges in both countries who have sullied the ideal of blind
justice! Don't let them get away with it. Write them letters expressing
your indignation and concern over inappropriate political meddling in the
judicial process and their succumbing to it.
http://asbarez.com/101344/2-countries-2-courts-too-cockamamy-conclusions/
From: A. Papazian