About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 252. The long surrender | Main | 250. The Supreme Court revealed! »
Friday
Mar232007

251. Power vacuums

A 3rd Infantry Division after-action report explains part of the ongoing catastrophe: "The president announced that our national goal was 'regime change.'  Yet there was no timely plan prepared for the obvious consequences of a regime change."  The result was "a power/authority vacuum created by our failure to immediately replace key government institutions."

Even the 3rd ID's lawyers staked out a relatively definite position, which is somewhat unusual for members of a profession reputedly addicted to the use of so-called weasel words.  The judge advocate's section of the report said: "The failure to  act after we displaced the regime created a power vacuum, which others immediately tried to fill."

In retrospect, of course, this is obvious stuff.   We all knew that, right?

When I first read about that report in Thomas E. Ricks' extremely good, extremely sad book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, I was reminded of something Justice Jackson said in 1949:

I suppose no one would doubt that our Constitution and Bill of Rights, grounded in revolt against the arbitrary measures of George III and in the philosophy of the French Revolution, represent the maximum restrictions upon the power of organized society over the individual that are compatible with the maintenance of organized society itself.

He was talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights we had in 1949, which were considerably different from the current documents going by those names.  (Like Toyota, the Supreme Court recycles the old names when it rolls out the new models.)  

Starting in 1961, the Supreme Court committed the United States to a prolonged experiment to see if Jackson was right.  For the next 46 years it has imposed ever-greater restrictions upon the power of American society over the antisocial individual.

The Court's experiment coincided with LBJ's Great Society housing program.   This, like the daycare center moving next door to the dingo farm in the Far Side cartoon, was not an ideal confluence of circumstances. 

What happened when the Court diminished the community's power to police the projects?  More or less exactly what has been happening in Iraq since 2003:  a power vacuum was created,  and it was filled by organizations even less responsive to democratic politics than the Chicago City Council.  Justice Jackson was proved correct: further restrictions on the power of society to police itself were, as it turned out, incompatible with continued earthly existence for many thousands of the most vulnerable Americans

In short, it turned out the Supreme Court didn't have a Phase IV plan, either.  Like the Bush administration, it produced a power vacuum and considered its mission accomplished.  One difference is, the Bush administration is belatedly paying a political price, but the Court has so far managed to make others pay its political bills.

Reader Comments (1)

When you're in a not good position and have no money to move out from that point, you will require to take the <a href="http://lowest-rate-loans.com/topics/credit-loans">credit loans</a>. Just because it would aid you for sure. I take commercial loan every single year and feel OK because of that.
April 23, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLillieMcdaniel

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.