Quoted in the NYT in "Donald Trump’s Tweets About a Judge Find a Critic in an Unlikely Place: China."
Judges like Mr. He admire the American legal system and study it to improve China’s rules, such as how to handle plea bargains or what to do with evidence obtained illegally, said Susan Finder, an American scholar who publishes the Supreme People’s Court Monitor, a blog that focuses on China’s top court.I'm glad Chinese judges look at the United States to get ideas about how a good legal system should operate. But judges are judges, and I am not surprised that a judge likes to think judges are above criticism. The independence of the judiciary is part of a system with 3 independent branches of government, and the structure is designed to protect the people from the abuse of power, and that protection comes as those occupying each branch jealously guard and fight for their power.
Ms. Finder said that Judge He was an avowed “Scotus junkie” who translates books about the Supreme Court of the United States and works on the court’s judicial reform committee. Works that have been translated by Judge He include “Making Our Democracy Work,” by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and “Becoming Justice Blackmun,” by Linda Greenhouse, about former Justice Harry A. Blackmun.
In the immigration case, the judge has said the President overreached his power, and the President is saying the judge overreached his power.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
It's legal feng shui.
It's the moron equivalence argument.
... judges are judges ...
... and so-called "judges" are just so-called "judges".
China is welcome to take so-called "Judge" Robart off our hands.
"get ideas about how a good legal system should operate." Now that's funny. At least, it made me laugh out loud. For what it's worth.
If Judge He is a fan of Linda Greenhouse then, well, he's a great guy. Maybe he could get an appointment to the Harvard Law faculty.
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
ATTRIBUTION: CHARLES DICKENS, Oliver Twist, chapter 51, p. 489 (1970). First published serially 1837–1839.
Source: Bartleby.com
""get ideas about how a good legal system should operate." Now that's funny. At least, it made me laugh out loud. For what it's worth."
I spent a lot of time choosing those words.
So does any criticism leveled against Gorsuch make liberals public enemies of the law?
"If Judge He is a fan of Linda Greenhouse then, well, he's a great guy. "
He Fan.
I don't know where I read it yesterday; maybe here, maybe Twitter.
"A judge is just a lawyer who kissed a politicians ass."
The difference between a progressive and a communist, is that a communist isn't hiding anything.
Judge He along with the NYT must've been really pissed when Obama dissed SCOTUS at the State of Union, right?
Confucius say: He who judge Trump trump justice.
You should read Susan Finder's blog, the Supreme People's Court Monitor, https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/ She is the main source on what the SPC is doing to increase predictability in litigation and strengthen the courts in China.
Ann Althouse said...
"I spent a lot of time choosing those words."
The image that frequently comes to mind, as I watch you contend with the great and little issues of our time, is that of a mime with an imaginary box, called The Law. I don't mean that unkindly. It might be nice, if everyone could see the box, and stayed inside it. Maybe if you act like it supports you when you lean against it ... Or maybe if you appear to struggle impotently against its iron constraints ... Run an idle hand along its cool, smooth, unyielding surface, to stop abruptly at the impassable edge ...
Now if you could just get bullets to bounce off it, like Superman's chest ...
Seeks joyfully the polarization of rich and poor.
"I spent a lot of time choosing those words." You chose well and made my morning. My keyboard survived, I am happy to report.
Since when did judges become the high priests of society, immune from criticism? Far too many appear little more than failed lawyers with sufficient political connections to get appointed or elected to the bench.
Hey what about the Oklahoma judge with the penis pump under his robe to got 4 years in prison back in 2006.
Is he above criticism?
Yes, we understand the theory; it's the half-assed practice that rankles.
I heard a former Reagan official make the same argument on NPR this morning, that criticizing a judge is an attack on the rule of law. Somehow I missed NPR's report that Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court was an attack on the rule of law.
I suppose judge He Fan will instruct us on the legal niceties of kidnapping billionaires from hotel rooms ?
A Chinese billionaire with connections to top Beijing leaders has been abducted from the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong by Chinese public security agents and taken to the mainland, according to two people familiar with the investigation.
Xiao Jianhua, a financier with links to the family of Xi Jinping, China's president, was one of several mainland businessmen who resided at the luxury hotel's serviced apartment block in Hong Kong in recent years as Mr Xi's corruption crackdown ensnared a growing number of tycoons.
They hoped they were beyond the reach of China's feared public security forces because Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous territory that has its own police and legal system. Chinese law enforcement agencies are not allowed to operate in Hong Kong, according to the former British colony's mini-constitution.
Yes, he should certainly instruct us about the law.
Something tells me that if the PRC agreed with Trump, it would be considered a negative. So the PRC disagreeing with Trump should be considered a positive, correct?
Foreign influence of our election, or at least our politics. It wasn't Deep Plunger, Nigerian Phishers, or even dead Soviets. It was the NYT channeling Communist Chinese.
Althouse:
"In the immigration case, the judge has said the President overreached his power, and the President is saying the judge overreached his power."
No; you do have it right, that in the immigration case the judge has said the President overreached his power. But the President's response was not in kind. The President's substantive response was that the judge was not a real judge. The judge was nothing more than a "so-called judge," to the President of the United States.
I suppose that the President can throw out as many trashy insults as he wants, as long as he obeys legal orders from federal courts. (No "so-called judges.") Giving no comfort to pro-Trump punks who wonder how federal judges might propose to enforce their orders, or wondering how many divisions the judges command. And so far, the Administration is at least following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Acting, contrary to the President, like the District Court Judge is indeed a real judge. And not a "so-called judge."
Chuck said...
"I suppose that the President can throw out as many trashy insults as he wants, as long as he obeys legal orders from federal courts. (No "so-called judges.") Giving no comfort to pro-Trump punks who wonder how federal judges might propose to enforce their orders, or wondering how many divisions the judges command."
Those would be "so-called pro-Trump punks". And you would be a "soi disant lifetime Republican", although we haven't heard much about that lately. Your distinction between a judge, and the court he ornaments or disfigures, is a valuable one.
Trump: "He Hate Me?"
Chuck: "I suppose that the President can throw out as many trashy insults as he wants, as long as he obeys legal orders from federal courts."
Did that also apply to Obama, or is that a new rule?
Chuck at 9:38 AM
The judge was nothing more than a "so-called judge," to the President of the United States.
Robart is nothing more than a "so-called judge" to me too.
Chuck seems to be channeling Chuck Schumer as I swiftly scroll past.
Do you ever get tired ?
Except when the Supreme Court oversteps its power, then what do you do? (Elect Trump and a new Congress is the correct answer I suppose, but what about old decisions that have become enshrined in the law?)
Michael K said...
Chuck seems to be channeling Chuck Schumer as I swiftly scroll past.
Do you ever get tired ?
2/7/17, 10:00 AM
Sure, Mike, but then his top feeds him another snort of amyl nitrite and he's good to go.
Between the incompetent botching of the ban’s rollout and the needless poking of judicial eyes, Trump has managed to take a Constitutional slam-dunk and turn it into a close call.
I wonder if Judge He was a fan of He Hate Me? (RIP XFL)
In America, we are free to call Chuck an asshole when he behaves as such.
Criticizing Trump not allowed! Damn Chuck, don't you know this yet?
HE should be mindful of criticizing Communist Party of China lest shit hit the FAN.
The Chink lives carefully in a Dictatorship who told him to diminish Trump, a known Enemy of China's claims to Formosa/Taiwan.
And the Chinese translations of James Madison are yet to arrive. What would a Madisonian know about Con Law in China, anyway.
Chuck, shouldn't you be providing legal advice at the next Kreisau Circle Jerk, planning for a post- Trump America?
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
Althouse:
"In the immigration case, the judge has said the President overreached his power, and the President is saying the judge overreached his power."
No; you do have it right, that in the immigration case the judge has said the President overreached his power. But the President's response was not in kind. The President's substantive response was that the judge was not a real judge. The judge was nothing more than a "so-called judge," to the President of the United States.
Nope. so-called means not competent. So called pitcher gave up 12 runs. So called plumber broke the sink, still charged customer. So called Republican champions Clinton, etc.
Has the judge overreached his power or his right? So far he is exercising the power without necessarily having the right. And if higher authority rules that he had no right, he will suffer no consequence other than that of being overruled.
That is another positive element of our system. You can thwart authority without legal punishment as long as you do it within the confines of the legal system. This seems unfair but we allow it for the sake of liberty and accountability.
FullMoon said...
...
... So called Republican champions Clinton, etc.
Where did I ever "champion Clinton"? Quote me. Show these readers where I ever wrote anything that "champions Clinton." Give them a link.
And when you can't do that, please tell the readers how sorry you are for that false charge.
This is a repetitive meme. When there's no disputing things that I have written which are critical of Trump, the attacks turn personal on me. Accusing me of being a crypto-Democrat. With no evidence to support such an attack.
Yeah like I really want advice from the Communist Party of China on how to run my Constitutional Republic.
David... but there is no way to impeach these so-called judges.
9th Circuit: Come, you silly bastards, humor us at the hour of six o'clock (hahahahaha...).
Hey, hey, hey ! This is library !
For all I know, He maybe She. Even if not, s/He may get some more fun legal ideas from the U.S. than s/He realizes.
And I doubt they have "substantive due process" in China. Come to think of it, they don't have it in any other civilized country I am familiar with. They probably just think due process has to do with process. Sad!
David said...
That is another positive element of our system. You can thwart authority without legal punishment as long as you do it within the confines of the legal system. This seems unfair but we allow it for the sake of liberty and accountability.
In this case one bad judge out of several who made the right decision countermanded a lawful order and let thousands of people rush into the country.
Good thing for the judge he is rich and lives in a safe neighborhood. The victims of terrorism are usually poor proles who have to live the multicultural dream while the people that force it live behind fences and walls.
Alex said...
David... but there is no way to impeach these so-called judges.
2/7/17, 2:14 PM
Bullet costs a quarter.
It's laughable to think that Chinese judges are independent in any sense or that there's anything like the rule of law in China. Every Chinese court has a committee of senior judges who are reliable Communist Party members, and they decide any case that has any political implications, telling the trial judges or appellate panel how to rule. They in turn take their instructions from higher ups in the Party, at least in those cases where they can't figure out what the Party line is. In other words, the Chinese Communist Party decides big cases, not independent judges ruling according to law. That is changing, to be sure, for non-political cases, like a car accident between two nobodies. But if there's a political issue of any kind or if a Party member is involved or has some interest in the case, the Party decides.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा