Beginning to look a lot like political insurance…

According to PhilStar, in a 10-5 vote the Philippine Supreme Court has struck down the Aquino administration’s Executive Order No. 1. This act would have established a Truth Commission that would have investigated the alleged wrongdoings of former president Arroyo. The court claimed that only Congress has the authority to establish new government bodies. Yet, skeptics are already pointing out that all of the members in the majority were appointed by Arroyo. Of course, four of the dissenters were also appointed by Arroyo (Justice Sereno is Aquino’s only appointee), but those four had already developed a reputation for independence. This issue arises to some extent in U.S. law, although usually in the form of prohibiting excessive delegation from Congress to the executive. When I have a bit more time on my hands, I’ll try to read the full opinion and provide more thoughts.

Comments Off on Beginning to look a lot like political insurance…

Filed under Aquino, Philippines

Book Review: Why Egypt has courts

Tamir Moustafa’s The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics, and Economic Development in Egypt addresses an important paradox in the study of comparative courts: why do stifling authoritarian regimes such as Egypt’s sometimes create vibrant courts with judicial review? Through an in-depth case study of Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court, Moustafa provides a nuanced and multifaceted answer, combining the regime’s need for legitimacy and its desire to attract foreign investment. In both cases, the courts acted as a credible commitment, through which even a government defeat could enhance the regime’s credibility. Moustafa provides a great review of the theoretical literature (at the time of publication at least), as well as a nearly blow-by-blow account of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s interaction with the political elites. I suspect this book will serve to generate theories about courts in authoritarian regimes, which I then hope other scholars will test using large sample studies. Highly recommended for scholars of comparative law and politics.

Comments Off on Book Review: Why Egypt has courts

Filed under Egypt, Tamir Moustafa

Book Review: The Four Justices Who Built Modern U.S. Constitutionalism

It seems as if there’s a veritable slew of good books about Supreme Court justices this year. The latest, Noah Feldman’s Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR’s Great Supreme Court Justices, focuses on four of Franklin Roosevelt’s appointees: Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, and William O. Douglas. 

Each of these justices is fascinating and could merit an individual biography (and there are biographies on each). By writing a joint biography, however, Feldman is really able to compare and contrast these men and their jurisprudence. Frankfurter was the activist law professor who was reluctant to exercise judicial review. Hugo Black, a former KKK member, became a noted civil libertarian and read the constitution literally. Robert Jackson, a small-town lawyer and later Nuremberg prosecutor, usually judged cases with an eye towards pragmatic policy solutions. William O. Douglas pined for political office but settled for preaching liberal values. Together, these men developed or promoted the modern constitutional doctrines of judicial restraint, originalism, pragmatism, and liberalism. 

Outside the legal realm, these four justices often fought and bickered to a degree startling for four liberals appointed by the same president. Robert Jackson, who at law schools is portrayed as a reverential figure, got into a petty argument with Black over whether the latter should recuse himself in a case involving a former lawyer partner. Jackson even took his dispute public, sending cables from Nuremberg to impugn his colleague. Frankfurter viewed Black as an intellectual lightweight and relied on a network of mentees to conduct historical research against Black’s legal philosophy. Douglas comes off as boorish, especially to his law clerks. However, there are some heartening moments too, such as when Frankfurter defends Jackson against the latter’s former ungrateful law clerk, William Rehnquist. 

I haven’t been a fan of Feldman’s past work, particularly the lightweight The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State (Council on Foreign Relations Book). However, I think he gets Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR’s Great Supreme Court Justices just about right. For law students like me, I can recognize some of the cases and legal debates to which the book refers. It certainly furthered my understanding of these cases. Perhaps best of all, having a passing familiarity with these justices, I was still genuinely shocked by some of the book’s anecdotes (particularly the petty fueds). However, it’s generally accessible enough for any reader interested in American history to understand and enjoy. 

My only “criticism” of Scorpions is that it’s not long enough to do the subject full justice. I know, that’s a common faux criticism. The main narrative essentially ends with Jackson’s death in 1954, after Brown v. Board. However, Feldman alludes to tantalizing hints of how the other justices behaved afterwards. For example, Black and Douglas, despite being ideological allies during the 1950s, stopped speaking to each other in the late 1960s. Yet, Feldman doesn’t really explain why. I felt like the book could really have benefitted from just a few more pages. 

Overall, I’d highly recommend this for readers interested in the Supreme Court in particular, or just U.S. history generally. I’d also recommend Jeff Shesol’s Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, which covers FDR’s court-packing scheme and acts as a nice prequel to Scorpions.

Comments Off on Book Review: The Four Justices Who Built Modern U.S. Constitutionalism

Filed under constitution, United States

Shariah in Aceh

Human Rights Watch has released a report critical of the application of Shari’ah law in Aceh, Indonesia. Policing Morality: Abuses in the Application of Sharia in Aceh, Indonesia alleges that citizen enforcement of the law has resulted in discrimination, abuse, and even torture. Of course, Islamic fundamentalism has been a controversial topic in Indonesia for quite some time. According to BBC, the head of the Sharia law department in Aceh, Rusydi Ali Muhammad, seemed to acknowledge some shortcomings, but also complained about the one-sidedness of the report. The real question is whether Aceh is an isolated phenomenon, or a harbinger of things to come for the rest of the archipelago…

Comments Off on Shariah in Aceh

Filed under Aceh, indonesia, Islam, Philippines

Trivial procedure

After much speculation and hand-wringing, Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruled on the first of two campaign finance charges against the Democrat Party. According to the Bangkok Post, the justices dismissed the case because the prosecution had not filed its case within the proper timeframe. Given the gravity of the case and its political importance, a decision on such narrow procedural grounds is surprising, to say the least. Furthermore, if the prosecution had simply passed the statute of limitations, why even hear the case at all? A more cynical interpretation of the decision might suggest that the justices wanted to avoid any decision on the merits or discussion of the alleged violations. I don’t yet have a copy of the case (if any readers do, please let me know), so I can’t say whether anything else of import was discussed. I can predict that Red Shirts will almost certainly view the Constitutional Court’s decision as yet another example of judicial double standards.

Comments Off on Trivial procedure

Filed under Thailand