Tuesday, June 09, 2015

The Supreme Court Votes For Apartheid And Disgraces Itself


JoshuaPundit : The Supreme Court ruled yesterday on a case known as  Zivotofsky v. Kerry. What was involved was a fairly simple issue. If an American citizen is born in Jerusalem, can his passport say, Jerusalem, Israel?

Menachem Zivotofsky, who's now 12 was born in West Jerusalem, but the State Department refused to allow 'Jerusalem, Israel' to appear on his passport or on the consular report our diplomats overseas are required to file on American citizens born abroad. Congress actually passed a law, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which included a section that mandated recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol. President George W. Bush signed the law, but issued a signing statement saying that it "violates the president’s foreign relations authority." Which of course brings to mind what foreign relations he as talking about, since the only sovereign nation involved was Israel.

Congress also has passed a law mandating that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. But presidents Bill Clinton, Bush, and Barack Obama have all refused out of “national security concerns.” Which ones? The ones concerning countries whom donate heavily to foundations,pay huge, inflated speaking fees and fund presidential libraries?

The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote struck down those laws. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion stated that the president has the exclusive power to decide what other foreign nations the United States will formally recognize for nation-to-nation dealings, and that Congress has no voice in it.

"Put simply, the nation must have a single policy regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not," Kennedy wrote. "Recognition is a topic on which the nation must speak with one voice. That voice must be the president's."

Kennedy was joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas , and the 3 justices pictured above,Ruth Nader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

I must admit I wasn't aware that recognition of Israel by the U.S. was still an issue.The language Kennedy used actually calls into question whether the U.S. recognizes Israel as a sovereign nation. If America recognizes Israel, why not it's official capitol?

Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented made the point that "The court takes the perilous step — for the first time in our history — of allowing the president to defy an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs." But the case is only partly an issue of executive power. It is also very much a civil rights issue. And that, the six justices in the majority ignored.

The civil rights issue comes in because Israel, the Jewish State is the only country in the world so treated by America. A U.S citizen born in Taipei can have 'Taipei, Republic of China' on their passport even though China disputes that. An American born in Srinagar, India, which is in the disputed area of Kashmir that Pakistan still claims can have 'Srinagar, India' written on his passport. An American born in Ramallah, believe it or not, can have his passport labeled 'Ramallah, Palestine.' But an American Jew born in Jerusalem may not have his passport say 'Jerusalem, Israel.'

Once again, these are special rules designed to apply to Israel and Jews alone. I would have expected Breyer and Ginsberg at least to understand fully what that means, not to mention Clarence Thomas.

With this majority opinion, the court did something else as well. Menachem Zivotofsky was born in West Jerusalem, a part of the city even the most vociferous Palestinian groupies in the UN or elsewhere never considered in reach of their grubby fingers. This ruling, however applies to ALL of Jerusalem, and gives them ideas on trying to stake a claim to the entire city.

Saeb Erekat, formerly the right fork of Yasser Arafat's tongue who now performs essentially the same function for Mahmoud Abbas was elated."It is a clear message to the Israeli government that its decisions and measures in occupying and annexing Jerusalem are illegal and void and that it should immediately stop these measures because it's a clear violation of the international law." Notice he said Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem, the usual language

As Ottomon censuses from as far back as 1840 show, Jerusalem has always been a majority Jewish city, and was never the capitol of any other nation. For centuries, Jews in exile yearned for it, and ended every Passover Seder, even in the darkest times with these words of hope: "Next year, in Jerusalem!"

The Old City was illegally occupied by Jordan for 19 years, and every Jew whom lived there was ethnically cleansed. For 19 years, the world did nothing as Jews were denied access to their holiest sites, as synagogues were burnt and desecrated, as even the Kotel, the Western wall was turned into a garbage dump and the tombstones on the Mount of Olives were ripped out and used to pave the streets.

Now, it's united again as Israel's capitol, a symbol of Israel's redemption. Six justices of the Supreme Court, three of them Jews chose to disgrace themselves by ignoring all that and imposing their own form of apartheid on Jerusalem and Israel, denying it the respect America gives even the smallest, most obscure nations. They should know better...far better.

Even the tolerance Israel gives to other faiths by allowing them to share Jerusalem - something they never received in return for those 19 years half of Jerusalem was judenrein - is denigrated and mocked by what happened in the Supreme Court chambers today.

In the end, as despicable as this is, it doesn't matter. Jerusalem belongs to Israel. It will never be given up again, never redivided, not so long as Israel exists and Jews defend it. To do so would be to rip the heart out of the Jewish people, and most of them know it..even if three judges unworthy of the name or of their Jewish heritage have forgotten it. They have my pity, but they will have to get forgiveness elsewhere.


louielouie said...

what is a supreme court?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Rob this is a simple, clearcut separation of powers issue. That "Jerusalem" was the epicenter of the case, doesn't change the fact that this is about the US Constitution alone. That some would use this to push their own agenda was predictable. The reality is that maybe it should not have been brought in the first place considering the political fall out.

The President and not Congress runs our foreign policy. The only power Congress has in foreign policy is the power of the purse and advice and consent on treaties. They do not have to fund the Presidents foreign policy, or verify a treaty (that of course is the sticking point about the Iran deal, whether it is or is not a treaty) but they cannot decide for themselves to override Constitutional authority. And yes, an Act of Congress can be unconstitutional. That is the point of SCOTUS to rule on these matters.It is called judicial review (see Marbury vs Madison)

By the way it is also about signing statements. A little issue that noone is talking about. SCOTUS basically has implied that when an act of Congress violates presidential powers then signing statements are acceptable.

What it comes down to is this: elections have consequences. Obama was and is anti-Israel. That the majority of the Jews of this country helped elect and reelect him has more to do with their own priorities.That they are crying foul about Jerusalem now only tends to make me nauseous.

Also note, every President since Bush 41 has written signing statements about the embassy law, which is often referenced in relation to the passport case. While it is only under Obama that Jerusalem, Israel was scrubbed from websites, it has been a continual policy of the US not to put Israel on passports of those born in Jerusalem before Obama was President.

But in the end as I said, this is about separation of powers. Congress does not make foreign policy for the US government, Presidents, as heads of state do. That is it in a nutshell. Please don't make more out of it then is necessary, you only fuel the fire of Israel's enemies.

Rob said...


I agree with Chief Justice John Roberts on this one. Foreign policy is constitutionally split between congress and the executive on many issues..the declaration of war, foreign aid and confirmation of the Secretary of State and ambassadors are some of many examples.

Justice Alito had the classic response to your argument about separation of powers on foreign policy: "Who says so?"

This is a major precedent exempting a president from abiding by an act of congress which was in no sense unconstitutional. It was not a treaty, nor was it an issue of recognizing a sovereign nation.

This is about more than mere separation of powers. It is discriminatory policy aimed only at Jews and Israel. Even Kennedy's opinion falters there, talking about it being the president's decision whether to recognizes foreign powers or not. Since the U.S, recognizes Israel,it also is bound to respect Israel's choice of its capitol, as it does for every other nation.

As far as those signing statements, all I can say is follow the money when it cones to each of the presidents who did this, as I mentioned. It makes it neither right nor constitutional.

I also have no problem, as you seem to in welcoming Jews whom are finally realizing what they did by voting for Obama and are now (at least some of them) trying to make teshuva, repentance. There are Jews like Haim Saban and Harvey Weinstein (both of whom met with Sheldon Adelson and other like minded Jews in Las Vegas to plot strategy and pool resources) who are finally waking up even though they lean left to what Obama has done to make 'anti-zionism' and Jew hatred respectable in America.

There are others, like Alan Dershowitz and these three justices whom ought to know far better, but continue to delude themselves willfully.

Finally, please don't lecture me about 'fueling the fire of Israel's enemies.' That sort of 'sha schtill, keep quiet' mentality is exactly what many Jews on the Left in America did during the Shoah, as you know very well.

And it's what a lot of Jews on the Left do today, because it interferes with their worshiping their new idol, Obama. The way to confront this is to make as much noise as possible and attack it forcefully.Israel's enemies and those of the Jewish people aren't hurting for fuel, since they happily manufacture it themselves.

The time for silence is long since passed. I say this respectfully since I know that we're on the same page for the most part when it comes to Israel.

Take Care,

Anonymous said...

Hi Rob,

Yes we are on the same page for the most part. I am not against speaking out, as you well know, but I am tired of the hypocrisy of those who fought tooth and nail for Obama and his policies,when they darn well knew better, suddenly having an epiphany and realizing the man is an antisemite. Now they are beginning to lecture the rest of us about the problems, issues and what we can and cannot do or say. That they are crying foul now annoys me to no end. That is all. Let them shout from the hill tops for all good it will do. They caused this problem, unfortunately it is the rest of us, mostly our children, who have to deal with it.

By the way I am not so impressed with Saban joining forces with Adelson right now, considering he is such a Hillary supporter. He too needs to grow up and deal with what a terrible human being and a true antisemite that woman happens to be.Otherwise he is simply going to be perpetuating the Obama-hate-Israel doctrine.

You may agree with Roberts, but the truth of the matter is that foreign policy comes out of the executive branch, through Foggy Bottom. You cannot have two foreign policies of the United States. The Constitution is very specific as to the role of Congress in foreign policy. It is very limited. Now that those at State are in their glory in demonizing Israel should come as no surprise to those who have dealt with the civil servant real powers that be at State.They are truly the last bastion of Jew-hatred in the US government.That it is discriminatory has no bearing on the separation of powers.It the end , it is really a very simple Constitutional equation.

And as far as following the money on the signing statements: for Presidents of the United States there are many considerations when making decisions. Mostly it has to do with what is best for this country. Whether it is avowing Presidential authority, realpolitik when it comes to the Arab oil states or even how to play one enemy off another, the majority of them (Obama is the exception) actually have the interests of the US at heart (I truly believed even Clinton had his legacy in mind when making those types of decisions). So I think your statement to that end is not necessarily fair.

In truth, everyone really knows that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is a false game played by fools to say otherwise.Let them play at their nonsense.In the meantime Israel will continue to restore her capital, especially the areas that the Arabs had ethnically cleansed of all Jews after the 1948 War for Independence, and bring it into a glory never seen before.

Israel doesn't need anyone's permission for that. She will do as she has always done, and what she needs to do.