...and I'm very grateful he is doing so in defense of Israel and against the terrorists. John Byrne detailed his UM speech and article in this post. This time, he writes a total and justified smack down of Yale professor Zareena Grewal in this National Review article, which starts this way:
On October 7, just hours after Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered some 1,400 Jews — including women, children, and 260 college-age kids who were dancing at a music festival for peace — Zareena Grewal (a professor in the ethnicity, race, and migration program and the American studies department at Yale College) had this to say on social media: “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.” There’s already a petition seeking Grewal’s termination that’s been making its way around the Yale alumni community (of which I’m a proud member). But that petition — which focuses mainly (and rightly) on Grewal’s support for the gruesome murders of toddlers and octogenarians — misses a more obvious point: Grewal is just wrong on the law and the facts.
Grewal’s underlying premise, after all, is that the Israelis who were butchered on October 7 were interlopers (“occupiers,” to use the fashionable term), living in some illegal settlement on Arab lands. But the people who were slaughtered were not settlers (and, even if they were, they weren’t legitimate military targets under any legal regime I’m aware of). On the contrary, under international law, they had just as much right to be where they were as an American does in New York City.
And finishes with:
Just hours after Hamas terrorists threw live grenades into bunkers full of terrified Jewish families, Grewal tweeted something I haven’t yet mentioned: “It’s been,” she gloated, retweeting a news video about the onslaught, “such an extraordinary day!”
Here’s the point: If Grewal (and people like her) subscribe to Hamas’s genocidal mission statement, they probably shouldn’t be serving as role models for our college-age children. But even if they don’t subscribe to Hamas’s hateful charter — if they’re just wrong about the basic facts — then they shouldn’t be teaching our children, the custodians of America’s future.
I've heard people ask whether a federal judge should be speaking out on issues like this. The answer is absolutely YES. This isn't an issue that will come before Judge Altman. And it's important for smart and respected people to be speaking out against antisemitism. Thank you, Judge.
UPDATE -- I should also thank Judge Milton Hirsch for speaking up. Here's his Constitutional Calendar email, which is so powerful and moving. I share it in its entirety:
(This Constitutional Calendar
item is associated with December 7. But given the present crisis --
given that scarcely three weeks have passed since
bloodthirsty Hamas terrorists murdered and kidnapped innocent Israeli men, women,
and children -- I'm distributing it today.)
The Constitution acknowledges
the existence, and the applicability to American government, of international
law. See, e.g., Art I § 8 (Congress is given power to “define
and punish . . . offences against the law of nations”); Art. VI (supreme law of
the land includes the Constitution, laws, “and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States”). Of course at
the time of the founding, international law, apart from treaties and the works
of some noted treatise-writers, was almost exclusively customary.
But that is not to say that it was not law. Certain principles were
universally, or all-but-universally, accepted. One such principle was
that a nation at peace with another, seeking to wage war against that other,
was obliged to declare war before commencing
hostilities. In ancient Greece Thucydides bitterly condemned the Thebans,
allies of Sparta, for launching a surprise attack against an ally of Athens
without a declaration of war.
On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a devastating attack against
the United States at Pearl Harbor. Over 2,400 Americans were killed,
and about 1,200 wounded. Of the eight battleships in the Pacific fleet,
all were damaged and four sunk. (Six were later returned to service and
went on to fight in the war. The USS Arizona, marked by a memorial to all
those who died, lies at the bottom of the harbor still.)
Japan's written declaration
of war was not conveyed till the following day -- after the
attack had been completed. The untimely Japanese declaration of war
cites Japan’s imagined grievances against the United States and Great
Britain, claiming that by declining to provide Japan with oil, steel,
and other natural resources, the U.S. and the U.K. had wrongfully interfered
with Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” – an Orwellian term
for Japan’s brutal conquest of Manchuria, and its plans for similarly
brutal treatment of Korea and all of southeast Asia.
The United Nations did not then exist, so there was no Secretary General Antonio Guterres to embrace Japan’s declaration and to bloviate that the attack on Pearl Harbor “did not happen in a vacuum.”
Of course nothing – absolutely nothing – happens in a vacuum. Our parents
and grandparents, however, weren’t foolish enough to concern themselves with
such irrelevancies. Having been savagely attacked in violation
of international law, America declared war on Japan, and committed its entire
strength to the war effort. There was no prattle about a “proportional
response,” or about a “ceasefire.” Any such prattle would have been
dismissed for what it was.
The Japanese target at Pearl Harbor was a military target: America's Pacific
fleet was all that stood between Japan and Asian conquest. The
attack of December 7 was not directed against civilians, and of all casualties
only 68 civilians died in that attack. The Japanese force did not kidnap
hostages, rape women (and then post videos of the rapes on social media), or
slaughter children.
The United States fought for, and demanded, unconditional surrender; and the
war was not over till that surrender took place on the deck of
the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Consistent with international law,
then and now, America used any and all forms of force at its disposal to
protect its homeland, its people, and its armed forces. Consistent
with international law, then and now, every nation, when the outlaw's
knife is at its throat, has the right to do the same.
Every nation. Then and now.
17 comments:
David, why are you so certain this issue won't come before Judge Altman? Is it that hard to imagine a local professor might be fired for making anti-semitic or pro-Hamas remarks? What if tomorrow a professor tweets that it would be glorious if Hamas did it again? If the university fires the professor, isn't it probable he would sue for violation of his first amendment rights. And might that case not fall before Judge Altman?
I agree with 720am.
Judges really should not be speaking about these sorts of issues.
I know that the Justices have made a little niche industry for themselves of public speaking gigs, but the judges and Justices all would do much better to keep their political opinions to themselves.
If Judge Altman wants to engage in this sort of thing, he may be better off joining academia or running for office.
Agree. There could also be related criminal prosecutions, extradition petitions, denaturalization proceedings, and even international custody disputes.
He absolutely should be able to speak out against a professor at his Alma Mater who is openly supporting terrorism and antisemitism. In the very off chance a related case comes before him that creates the appearance of a conflict or bias, he can recuse. What happened the last time Jews and others remained silent in the face of exploding antisemitism?
I also agree that Judge Altman should absolutely be able to speak on these issues. Judges frequently pen articles, editorials, or books, and Altman's opinion piece is no different. Notably, a note appended to the article states that these statements "are not offered in his capacity as a judge." As to concerns about whether a potentially related issue could come before Judge Altman in the future -- well, that is always a risk and a reality dealt with routinely through motions to disqualify.
Judges have first amendment rights too.
It's not that Roy Altman shouldn't be able to speak. Roy Altman can say as he pleases. But in life we make certain choices, and those choices come with trade offs. Roy Altman chose to accept an extremely prestigious and powerful appointment as a federal judge. That choice came with with a built in trade off that he shouldn't engage in political conduct. See Code of Judicial Canon 7. His speech may not violate the letter of the law (or maybe it does), but it violates the spirit of the law.
Judge Altman cannot avoid the judicial Canon's (or their intended spirit) simply by saying that the opinion is "not offered in his capacity as a judge."
When Roy Altman became Judge Altman, he made a choice and accepted a gag. If he feels strongly enough about it, he is always free to remove that gag, but doing so involves stepping down from the bench. #Choices.
Blah blah blah. It was indeed wrong when we dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. It is indeed wrong when Israel drops bombs on refugee camps. And citing customary international law of all things in support of Israel is laughable given the history beginning in 1948.
Absurd position, 1:16 PM. And to the extent that "Code of Judicial Canon 7" were to apply to *United States* District Judge Roy K. Altman, I fail to see how an editorial criticizing the tweets of a Yale law professor violates it.
@221 - its not merely an editorial. Judge Altman says "Grewal is just wrong on the law and the facts." But deciding the law and the facts is something that judges should be be doing without and before process.
1:16, you may want to learn the differences between the state and federal canons of judicial conduct before purporting to opine on them.
I think the point about the canons is not the Judge Altman did something worth punishing - I doubt anyone thinks that. It's that there is an understanding in our society that judges should stay out of politics. It's just not their role.
Apparently you all can say anything is political including giving tenure to an undeserving teacher. But to the specific point, the purpose of Canon 7 is to prohibit political activity by judges who have to run for election. The argument here about the Canons actually proves the opposite of what the writer thinks it does. Canon 7 and it’s language plainly DOES NOT apply to federal judges.
This is the knucklehead who wrote a quick anonymous comment about the canons. You all are right that the canons don't apply. I was wrong about the canons. There you go. Ooops. Bad on me.
Judges with life tenure who can decide our fate as lawyers and the fates of our clients should still exercise discretion and common sense and stay out of the political fray.
The good judge has stirred up a hornets nest. We each have the right to opine on it. But what if he learns that one of us talked trash about what he said? He might hold a grudge and hurt our future cases. This fear chills our speech and we hide behind anonymous comments (if we even post what we think to begin with). So, it becomes a question of chilling the speech of a handful of un-elected officials or chilling the speech of the very segment of society whose job it is to speak up.
My God that’s really your argument? You’re afraid to talk trash?? Grow up. People talk trash in court, out of court, on blogs, and on appeal everyday. Maybe you ought to read some pro se filings. There are plenty of really good lawyers here. They know these judges relish the adversarial system and strong advocacy. Do your clients a favor and look for other work.
A judge is allowed to hold stock in Microsoft or Apple so long as he (or she) reports it and then recuses himself (or herself) from a case involving one of those companies. No big deal. This happens a hundred times a day in America. It’s a completely normal mechanism, which recognizes that judges interact with the world just as others do. But why isn’t a judge allowed the same non-controversial relief (even assuming he (or she) needs to go that far) when he (or she) calls out objectively evil behavior? Why are we now pretending that some “spirit of the law” has now been violated when the same mechanism that protects the “spirit of the law” in something as meaningless as stock ownership remains available? Why is there a social tax (pretending to be a moral one) attached to this use of the mechanism but not the other? Why is recusal for holding a single share of Apple a non-issue but recusal for voicing opposition to objective evil an issue? (And unless one’s prepared to defend Grewal’s explicit celebration and support for the murder of innocent human lives, I think we can safely call it objective evil.) If the harm is that when a judge speaks we learn more about them, then what did learn about the judge here? That he doesn’t support the destruction of innocent human lives, that he knows the law, and that he knows history (or at least researches his positions before publishing them, contra Grewal). None of this smacks as the appearance of impropriety. In fact, it does just the opposite.
The crux of theses comments centers around whether the article's thesis is political. I think a competent person (especially an attorney) who reads it would, or at least should, understand that the article is carefully limited to historical facts and the law. There is nothing political about it. Simply because tangential issues of the geopolitical conflict's broader context have (unfortunately) become political--such as Congressional spending--does not mean the limited points in the article are inherently political. That is, unless one cannot think freely and divorce the historical facts in the article from an inherent desire to reflexively decry anything that seems to undercut a sincerely held personal subscription, such as the one debunked in the article.
Post a Comment