21 Comments
User's avatar
Yenta Vegan's avatar

Professor Dershowitz! Thank you for sharing your words of wisdom. May Hashem Bless and protect you.

Expand full comment
Iris's avatar

Thank you for this enlightening information

Expand full comment
Paul  Weiss's avatar

What I would like to know is how a Justice who was publicly incapable of defining the term “woman“ did not recuse herself from a decision that, among other things, would necessitate thoroughly understanding the definition of a “woman“ and a “man?” That seems rather hypocritical to me - in the “in your face” sense of “hypocritical.” I refer, of course, to yesterday’s Skrmetti ruling.

With regard to the actual content of this post, I fully agree with professor Dershowitz regarding the role of the judiciary. I think that it is quite clear that judges should be involved solely in determining whether a particular law or regulation is constitutional (or not), or whether it has been implemented in a constitutionally permissible way (or not). The essence of a fair judge, which they should all strive to be, is to put aside their own personal feelings about the merits of any particular policy. Again, I would agree with Professor Dershowitz that Justice Brandeis was a good representative of that ideal, since he often times ruled against his own personal beliefs. But, of course, judges are merely human beings, and are subject to bias, and they are nominated by people who are most certainly biased toward a particular political point of view… so this has not only been a problem in the past, as it is in the present, but I believe that we will be living with this problem for the rest of time.

Expand full comment
Iris's avatar

She would only have been confirmed to be on the Supreme Court during Biden’s administration (or Obama’s). This may have been Obama’s “3rd term”. She was definitely a DEI hire

Expand full comment
F B's avatar

Fantastic article. This is a great example of why I subscribe your stack.

Expand full comment
Payne Walker's avatar

When an illegal alien has a deportation order how much more due process is due? Do they get appeals all the way to SCOTUS. When is due process over?

Expand full comment
Iris's avatar

Illegal aliens are not supposed to get due process. Only citizens do and illegal aliens are not citizens they are illegals and have no business being in this country

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

This was a great, informative article. Thank you for writing it.

Expand full comment
Brian Patno's avatar

Alam, I admire your intelligence, productivity, and your passionate pursuit of the truth. All the Best,

Expand full comment
Payne Walker's avatar

Excuse me! Judges ruling to block policies, firings and fundings of the President is not the same as ruling race based admissions or funding is unconstitutional. Nor is murder of a child a Constitutional Right. The SCOTUS was acting properly in judging those matters. They are not acting proper issuing national injunctions against Presidential powers.

Expand full comment
Doug Israel's avatar

I agree but the biblical "judges" is not comparable to a modern American judge. The time of the judges in Israel was a time when "every man did what was right in his own eyes". That is why there was famine in the land. It is a justification for the coming monarchy. Biblical judges were charismatic leaders who stepped forward in times of severe military threat to temporarily lead Israel. Among the famous judges were Deborah, Gideon and Sampson. These were not arbiters of the law. But I agree with your point about judicial rule nevertheless.

Expand full comment
Josh Rosenfeld's avatar

I agree with the normative point. But how many judges have the humility and wisdom to exercise restraint? And aren't judges often selected specifically because of their ties to the party in power?

For what it's worth, Judge Fletcher's take on Justice Brandeis was that he only evinced a belief in restraint because he didn't have a majority on the Court, and that he was disappointed that Justice Frankfurter - who did have a majority- took his arguments for restraint at face value. I'm curious to know if you believe that there's any validity to Judge Fletcher's opinion.

Expand full comment
Lou Rossi's avatar

district court judges shouldn’t be able to issues injunctions beyond their districts. Appellate courts issue conflicting injunctions all the time, the Supreme court decides. It’s ridiculous that a district court judge can issue a national injunction.

.

Expand full comment
Joseph Harari's avatar

Don’t think so “in Orthodox Jewish sect”!?!

Expand full comment
Rita Crawley's avatar

What the hell are you on about? He was talking about American judge’s interfering with the executive and legislative branches of the American government! Referencing ancient judges only reiterated that judges have usurping their authority for millennia! Read to learn, critique and add to your knowledge!

Expand full comment
Mary Jo Nieson's avatar

The ppl are sovereign

Expand full comment
Rita Crawley's avatar

Thank you for that clear and concise explanation of judges’ jurisdiction!

Expand full comment
Bob Raphael's avatar

It was the due process clause of the 14th amendment that brought to light the concept of substances due process, which has been misused ever since. And all of these made up scrutiny, tiers are a lot of bullshit

Expand full comment
Sheryl Kreckman's avatar

Just stay far away from lawyers and court systems in the first place there’s no need for all of this nonsense.

Expand full comment
greg starr's avatar

Are judges and Law School professors by nature less corruptible? A constant issue is why anyone is more interested or puts any weight on Alan's viewpoints than in for example ex-President Biden's. A big issue now is Iran's government and its brutality. A couple years back, it arrested 20 000 protestors of course without due process or even niceties we are accustomed to- - -after seizing a woman who had not "properly" covered her hair and beat her so badly she would choose death to life.. Maybe that could have happened also in an orthodox Jewish sect? We do not need Dershowitz's opinions on that.

He can pipe up and say "Been there, Done that", referring to his real life patterns of wifebattering (the divorce court judge determined this) of Sue Barlach, his first wife and mother of his two boys. Battering resulted in hospitalization, a permanently flattened nose and long term psychological therapy shortcircuited by her apparent suicide. "Been there, done that". I wonder how the boys feel about him. Can they mask the visceral hate? I notice on the Substack blurb introducing Dershow, Dersh is presented as having one child, Ella, Nowhere are the two boys mentioned. Dersh in a speech 2months ago in Israel announced he was giving his fortune (presumably Epstein- -derived, directly or indirectly) to a Likud affiliated charity (of course benefitting only Jewish israelis) . Have the boys been disinherited, a ripple effect of Sue Barlach's tragic death? . Is Dersh the psychological doppelganger of the Iranian prison guards he now wants Israel to kill? Is this not an example of psychology's "displacement"?

And that brutal Iranian government completely disregards the very issues Alan fought so hard for following in the footsteps of Mario Savio in the seventies: free speech and free association, voting rights, stopping blacklisting! But today both Israel and Dersh himself completely oppose these issues, with Dersh going to comical extremes 1) to blacklist Finkelstein, travelling to DePaul with a list of donors pledging non-funding and his own version of Luther's 57 Theses to be nailed to the door of the Admin Building and then 2) to blacklist the Afro-American President of the NYU Law School Student Association.

And on the subject of comedy, there was Alan's hasty breathless effort to get secret (!) immunity from all pedophilia charges.. Four co-conspirators (not Ghislaine (!), to Jeffrey's utter amazement followed by contempt) were included in the effort to win secret immunity from pedo charges. He marshalled support from Epstein mentors and friends in the Mega Group of Jewish billionaires, got States Attorney Brischer with the Anti-Defamation League onboard, got Amicus support from AIPAC donors who blithely claimed Alan was only acting as a privileged attorney , threatened and pressured Federal DA Alex Acosta and then had Acosta informed thst the Epstein Organization was a protected "intel" activity"., So Dersh got his secret immunity. He celebrated. God's irony awaited. Opposing attorney David Bois, the hero of the story, noticed that Dersh's legal knowledge had a blind spot. The Victims Rights Act prohibited secret immunity agreements. The hard-won immunity was revoked by Federal Court. Dersh is therefore still indictable on the pedo accusations-But he has complicated matters with his extensive collection of NDAs (acquired sometimes with help from the Epstein Estate), maintaining on his part continuation of the cover up Times and minds change especially when one gets to be around 86. BTW Alan, have you yet remembered where you put that alibi evidence? Oh, your wife cleaned up your desktop- - -oh no, that was Sue Barlach.

Then too is the fact that much of the American population labels Dersh as a pedophile. Now why are we interested in a pedo's viewpoint of life? Is pedophilia not so unnatural that it betrays a mindset quite foreign to both American values and sensibility? Even Dersh is willing to admit as a foreign agent to a primary loyalty, not to American values, but to the values of the Jewish State which historically and conspicuously exclude the core value of human equality. Dersh says he was not convicted. True, and that per se is an indictment of the corruption culture of the American judicial process. Influence peddling rather than interpretation of law determines an indictment. This is a probably Dershowitz's sole enduring contribution after a lifetime of living in America. Influence peddling is a thing among Harvard educated lawyers today. But he does not care about moral observations since his obsession is the Jewish State. He displayed this, working as the pedo Israeli intel agent Jeffrey Epstein's attorney for 20 years, keeping Epstein free from law enforcement investigation and any penalty more severe than wrist slapping for grooming and raping dozens of kids ( Dersh protected Epstein so well, he got only weekends in jail for a short period, after which Epstein substantilly raised the number of raped kids. Nice work influence peddling, Alan.) But again, the obsession was Israel which benefitted immensely from the blackmail acquired by Epstein. Jonathan Pollard was free tom walk the streets of Jerusalem. Israel got possession of those krytons. Oh, and as to suitability as a podcaster, must not forget the personal and multiple accusations by kids that Dersh quite personally committed serial pedo rape on them, non-consensually of course.

But influence peddling kept the allegations from being indictable offenses, though the causes of action remain; there is no statute of limitations covering pedo rape. So that is why we have the Epstein - Dershowitz cover up. Must not let any additional damning evidence come out which might force prosecutors to defy the Israel Lobby. Mr Schlossberg wondered if Alan has ever had consensual sex. But he probably has, though maybe never with Sue Barlach. . Alan got so rich from Epstein, he can now easily buy consent from some teenager, even with his 86 y.o. time-worn body

Expand full comment