The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
16 comments:
CLE approved? Because I need me some. Otherwise being in a room with so many fed judges makes me very uncomfortable- like an OA with the 11th but worse.
I find the whole thing bizarre. I don’t understand the intersection with U.S. courts. I suspect there will be no CLE.
10:10 then you should go and ask. But I suspect you know your questions are ridiculous. I'll only humor the second one, if only for the sake of others who might read.
"jurist.....Zionism.....Haredi Jews." You're lumping three things together on apparent assumptions that they have natural connections somehow when they just don't.
And Haredi Jews as such don't oppose Zionism, i.e., the baseline, long-held belief of Jews that they should have self-determination as a people in their ancestral homeland. Zionism is opposed by a VERY small, very fringe group of ultra-religious Jews, including the notorious Naturei Karta you reference in one of your videos, who extremist views are not representative of, or a guidepost for, or a barometer, of the view of all Haredi Jews and certainly not all Jews, the vast vast majority of which did and do support Zionism. In short, the fact that a very small group of extremist Jews oppose Zionism really has bearing on what a jurist would or should think about Zionism.
And by the way, when you consider that Israel in fact was established in 1948 and almost half the world's Jews live there, including millions of descendants of Jews forced from Arab and North African lands, who emptied themselves of Jews after 19848, it should be clear how extreme and horrible a viewpoint "anti-Zionism" is. Whatever one could say about being against Zionism before 1948, today it is necessarily a view that advocates for the destruction of a country and the unavoidably concomitant death and expulsion of its millions of Jewish inhabitants.
So let me get this straight. A group of federal judges, with no particular expertise or knowledge of Israel, goes on a taxpayer funded junket and returns to hold a smeinar to talk abou it. To make it even more odd, a group of lawyers shows up to attend. For what reason? Let me guess. Could it be to suck up to authority? You will not see many lawyers expereinced in the nuances of legal seminars though. And why is that? Two words. "light refreshments." Translation: NO BOOZE. Count me out.
10:53, what makes you think this was a taxpayer-funded trip?
Not @10:53 here but regardless, this event, sponsored by the court and held at the courthouse during working hours, is certainly taxpayer funded.
Are 10:53 and 2:18 suggesting we do away with all the different heritage month panels? Or just the Jewish one. Don't recall this kind of backlash for similar panels relating to other minorities.
I am not 10:53 or 2:18, but yes, I for one do suggest doing away with all the different heritage month panels. They do nothing but reinforce difference and other-ness. Alternatively, and in the interest of equal treatment, I suggest that the court hold a W.A.S.P. heritage event too (fyi, I am not a W.A.S.P.).
The above said, the current panel is particularly troubling because Israel/Palestine is such a hot-button issue now and the judiciary has no business getting involved in it. The debate is a policy debate. This panel looks like it will be a thinly veiled foreign policy forum. The judiciary should not be in the business of setting or even seeking to influence policy, much less foreign policy (I know, naive, but I'm an idealist).
Just odd. And harmless. Feels like 1965 when our neighbors came back from a vacation in California and we sat in a living room looking at their carousel gizmo as they regaled everyone with (boring) details of a sojourn I was glad I never took.
2:18, funding for this event wasn't my question. 10:53 presumed the judges took a "taxpayer funded junket" to Israel. I'd like to know why s/he thinks that's the case.
Actually @2:55 putting this under the banner of heritage month is also odd.
Busy week:
http://fedsoc.org/events/the-israel-hamas-war-its-causes-its-ramifications-for-the-future-of-western-civilization
3:22—
The issue you raise is worth discussing because others share your point of view—that these cultural events “reinforce otherness and difference.” From your phrasing, I understand you concede that otherness and difference are prevalent in our society. I disagree, however, that these events reinforce these constructs. From my perspective, these events are an opportunity for our community to learn more about the traditions, people, scholarship, history, and current experiences of those who’ve overcome oppression and hardship to triumph and create opportunities for all. Again, this is only my opinion and perspective.
Where I think you have a stronger point is the episodic and selective nature of these events. All institutions, including our courts, risk reinforcing otherness by only celebrating some cultures and heritage and not others. For example, April was Arab American Heritage Month; May is Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month; June is Pride Month, and July is Disability Pride Month. Senator Booker and others recently introduced a resolution to designate January as Muslim-American Heritage Month. When these cultures, heritages, and pride months are not celebrated or recognized at all or not with the same energy and commitment as others, members of those groups (and their allies) can’t help but feel diminished and unvalued. This is especially true for our court, where members of these groups do not have the same power as the members of the communities being celebrated.
As for next week’s panel, Jewish American Heritage Month is well worth celebrating. Despite Jewish Americans’ important contributions to our country, they have faced antisemitic harassment, violence, and the threat of expulsion for hundreds of years. And well before the war began, antisemitism has been on the rise.
But, as we privileged people say, this panel is fraught. I know the participants are acting in good faith and not seeking to hold a political event, but perception is reality. And the reality is that everything is political—even our gas stoves. There is a legitimate concern that, given the subject matter, even a perceived political Article III event is inappropriate and will drive us further apart instead of bringing us closer together. Let’s hope those concerns are unfounded.
OMG! WTH cares!! Is EVERYTHING about Jews these days?! Enough already!
I.E. Boondoggle...
Hey 7:11 AM, clearly you care enough to take a moment of your morning to make a public statement expressing exasperation about Jews. And that's the thing. Believe me: As a Jew, I wish we weren't such a hot topic right now. But people who hate Jews and want to defame Jews and harm Jews are speaking and acting with increased energy. So we need to speak and act as well.
Post a Comment