"Ruth Bader Ginsburg - RIP"

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swstotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

Ruth Bader Ginsburg – RIP

September 20, 2020

“She was the best of colleagues, as she is the best of friends. I wish her a hundred years.” 

Justice Antonin Scalia On the occasion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 10^th Anniversary on the D.C. Court of Appeals 1990

In his novel, The Way we Live Now, Anthony Trollope wrote about his main protagonist, Augustus Melmotte: “But there had grown upon the man during the last few months an arrogance, a self-confidence inspired in him by the worship of other men, which clouded his intellect, and robbed him of much of that power of calculation which undoubtedly he naturally possessed.” Americans, especially those on the far left, have a tendency to elevate heroes to elysian heights, while consigning opponents to eternal damnation. 

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a brilliant jurist, a pioneer in women’s rights and a person who put politics aside when it came time to choosing friends, as could be seen in her long friendship with Antonin Scalia, opera being a common interest. She fought for equality, fairness and justice. As a lawyer, she argued six cases before the Supreme Court and won five of them, before being appointed to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President Carter in April 1980. She was worshipped by fans who called her “notorious” RBG. Two years ago, Betsy West and Julie Cohen produced a documentary on her life, “RBG.” At least six biographies have been written on her life. But we elevate people to iconic status at a risk. She, like all of us, was human.

 

Ms. Ginsburg was political. On July 10, 2016, in an interview with the New York Times, she said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can’t imagine what this country would be – with Donald Trump as our President.” Shortly before she died, she dictated a letter to her granddaughter Clara Spera, in which she said: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

 

There is no question that the Supreme Court does not (and cannot) rise above politics. Judges are nominated by politicians and confirmed by politicians. Nevertheless, lifetime appointments should reduce political interference and angst. In fact, Supreme Court Justices have, at times, turned opposite to what had been expected, two examples being Felix Frankfurter and Earl Warren. Nevertheless, what is important if we want this Republic to persist for another two hundred and thirty-three years is adhering to the basic functions of the three branches of government: A legislature that creates laws; an executive that carries out laws, and a court that ensures laws passed comply with the Constitution. 

 

We will mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a few days, with flags around the country at half-mast. Then politics will reenter the forum, with the President nominating a replacement. Democrats will invoke the memory of Merrick Garland, whose nomination by Barack Obama was blocked in 2016 by a Republican majority-held Senate. Had Democrats controlled the Senate four years ago, Mr. Garland would be Justice Garland today.

 

In this partisan world we inhabit, days of collegiality brought about by mourning for Justice Ginsburg will likely be short-lived. RBG’s death highlights the importance of this election – the difference between those who believe in a “living” Constitution that continuously updates reflecting cultural changes, and those who believe that decisions should be based on the written Constitution and precedent. Questions arise: Should the role of judges be to make or interpret the law? Should legislation be conducted from the bench? Seth Lipsky, in an editorial for the New York Sun, wrote of his admiration for Ms. Ginsburg, but he also recalled an exchange she had in Cairo eight years ago. The interviewer had mentioned that Egypt was writing a new constitution and wanted to know if Egypt should look to other constitutions. She replied: “I would not look at the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.” She preferred the more detailed bills of rights in the constitutions of Canada, South Africa and Europe. Mr. Lipsky added in his editorial: “Our Constitution rarely grants rights. It establishes negative rights, meaning prohibitions on government interfering with rights granted by God.” The distinction is important, in what it says about the role of government. A quote often mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson has relevance: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government to take away everything you have.”  

 

I had great respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as I do for the opinions of many of my friends on the Left but, just as I disagree with them, I disagreed with her judgments. Nevertheless, she left the world a better place. The real lesson to be learned from RBG is the relationship she had with her fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. They did not let political differences interfere with their personal friendship. Personal relations, even in disagreement, should be civil, collegial and respectful. As for whether President Trump should use this opportunity to nominate a replacement, why shouldn’t he? Surely, Democrats would. As Justice Ginsburg said in that same interview with the New York Times four years ago: “There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” But I pray rhetoric does not become elevated, and that the enduring friendship of two Justices, who represented different views at the Supreme Court, is remembered, as it hovers over a Senate weighing a decision.

"China at Seventy - Truth and Facts - Lessons for the U.S.?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“China at Seventy – Truth and Facts – Lessons for the U.S.?”

October 8, 2019

“How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm

After they’ve seen Paree.” 1919

                                                                                    Walter Donaldson, Composer

                                                                                    Joe Young & Sam M. Lewis, Lyricists

A few years ago, a good friend, Charlie Hamm, privately published a small book, The Art of Life, a recitation of observations gained over a long and successful life. He wrote on many subjects, including comments on ‘truth’ and ‘fact.’ “Truth,” he wrote “is what someone believes to be actual and noncontroversial. Fact, on the other hand, has nothing to do with belief.”  In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson used the same words: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among those rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Facts, on the other hand, told Jefferson something different: “The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a history of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Unlike our system, Chinese leaders do not deal in truths. We put trust in the people, not government. Our government is consciously inefficient, with a separation of power that allows for deliberation and compromise, and the protection of minority rights. Voting is by secret ballot; property and persons are safeguarded under the rule of law. Our Constitution gives power to the governed and limits power of the governors. In China, the reverse is true. There is no deliberation, compromise or rule of law. Government in China is efficient, with power vested in one Party, the Communist Party, which is composed, according to Wikipedia, of 90.6 million members, or less than seven percent of the population. While there are 2,980 members of the National People’s Congress, real power resides among the 205 members of the Central Committee, with absolute power in the hands of one man, Xi Jinping. There are no minority rights, as imprisoned Uighurs in Western China know full well, as do those in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Over the past forty years China has become wealthier. Millions have been lifted from abject poverty, but income discrepancies are stark. Wealth and income gaps in China make the U.S. appear a paragon of equality in comparison. According to a to a report in The New York Times last March, 153 members of the People’s Congress collectively have $650 billion in wealth, a third higher than the previous year and, using data from Wikipedia, an amount forty times greater than the combined wealth of the fifty richest members of the U.S. House and Senate. China has half as many billionaires as the U.S., yet household income is one-twelfth that of the United States. And, keep in mind, much of their economic growth has come from the theft of technology from the West. As their economy slows and as dissidents battle those who would subdue them, truths about the facts of China’s economic miracle and its role in the world are exposed.

On October 1, the Chinese Communist Party celebrated the 70^th Anniversary of its founding. “It was,” wrote the Dutch historian Frank Dikotter in Foreign Policy, “a liberation that plunged the country into decades of Maoist cruelty and chaos.” Commenting on the spectacle of violence in Hong Kong, Seth Lipsky wrote on October 2 in the New York Sun: “It is a moment to mark a profound truth: There is no difference between political liberty and economic liberty. They cannot be separated, nor can one be put before the other.” In honor of the 70^th birthday, Xi Jinping held his second military parade in four years. The purpose, as Edward Wong wrote in The New York Times was to “bolster the party’s legitimacy by strengthening nationalism…while reassuring foreign audiences that China’s growing might does not pose a threat.” But did the display of nuclear-ready intercontinental missiles capable of reaching all parts of the United States serve that purpose? Or will it cause (as it should) the U.S. to respond by deploying a more sophisticated anti-missile defense system? China’s military and economic reach has become global – witness islands built in the South China Sea and signed “Belt and Road” initiatives to build ports in Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America, which have indebted some countries and compromised others.

By necessity, the United States’ relations with China are driven by realpolitik. China has the world’s second largest economy. They have the world’s largest standing army. In terms of tonnage, they have the second biggest navy in the world and the third most powerful air force. An estimated one third of global maritime trade passes through the South China Sea. Like a newly-hatched giant reptile, China has emerged onto the global scene from an extended period of nationalist incubation. The installation of 200 million cameras and the imprisonment of a million Uighurs in Northwest China remain facts of domestic tyranny, while protesters in Hong Kong are a manifestation of the truth that the desire for freedom is universal. In a dangerous world, with China rising and holding weapons capable of destroying the globe in a matter of minutes, we must avoid the Thucydides Trap that says a rising power and an established power are bound for war. For all their economic success, China remains a dictatorship. It is their military and economic aggression that should concern us. We cannot afford to not deal with them, no matter their human rights violations. But, for the sake of our moral imperatives, we cannot ignore their transgressions.

Will truths in China always be denied the people? Probably, but the question is unanswerable. Three factors imply possible change. One is education. Since 1979, when Deng Xiaoping first freed China’s economy in 1978 from the harness of Maoism, an estimated five million Chinese students have traveled abroad to study. The majority came to the United States, with most being sons and daughters of senior Chinese officials. Second is economic: Many in China have become rich. Property rights and rule of law appeal to those with income and wealth. One cannot help but wonder if the rubric at the head of this essay holds relevance. Perhaps it does, which leads to the third, which is fear Communist Party leaders must have as they witness the restlessness on display in Hong Kong. Can order be maintained? Or will it spread to the mainland? Can Party membership be withheld from those who have benefitted from a liberalized economy?  Last year, twenty-two million people applied to become members of the Communist Party, but only two million were accepted. China must keep the ninety million members of the Party happy, while keeping the other 1.2 billion people mired in contented ignorance. Can they do it? Or will the ninety-three percent rise up against the seven percent who control most of the wealth?  

But it is the U.S. that concerns me. Our democratic republic is under attack. To remain true, we should all scrutinize Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence, especially the first two paragraphs. Last May, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo referenced them, as he spoke at the Claremont Institute’s 40^th Anniversary: “The distinctive mark of Western Civilization is the belief in the inherent worth of human beings, with the attendant respect for God-authored rights and liberties.” Yet, consider where we stand: In the matter of impeachment, the Speaker has usurped power that rightfully belongs to the full House. Congress has given up the making of some laws to administrative bodies of the Executive branch. Administrative courts have made decisions, previously the reserve of the Judicial branch. Judges are being asked to respond with political answers to Constitutional questions. We are not China, but the future looks less certain. Before we lose our way, we should all recall the truths embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We cannot let convenient facts and disingenuous promises destroy inherent truths.