5 ms·

I want to say something and I promise I say it not as a dig on you... as someone who's followed you for more than 10 years, I am fascinated that despite the man

by pen2l 2y ago

I want to say something and I promise I say it not as a dig on you... as someone who's followed you for more than 10 years, I am fascinated that despite the many, many changes and revisions in your belief systems over the years, something that never changes is the certainty and conviction and confidence in your tone. I guess it's a good thing, wish I had it. Makes for persuasive and effective writing, that's for sure.

rayiner 2y ago
On this issue, I don't think there's been a change. I don't believe in universalism, which Americans on both the left and right tend to do. I opposed the Iraq War because I thought America had no business trying to bring democracy to Iraq (and knew Iraqi society couldn't handle democracy). Similarly, I oppose current U.S. efforts to impose universal norms. America shot a bunch of striking workers and polluted the environment on the way to becoming rich. Why shouldn't Bangladesh have that same prerogative?
freejazz 2y ago
It's just dress-up for really specious legal theories, such as we should disregard this statute because they believed in the "law of god" at the time, but of course, not any other law he would prefer not be overturned from that time.
- rayiner 2y ago
  I’m not arguing ad hominem. In this case, the nonsensical thing they believed makes the statute itself nonsensical: > The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. The highlighted part just doesn’t make sense unless you believe in some universal, God-given “law of nations.” In this context, the supernatural belief renders the statute itself nonsensical, like a law setting tariffs on imported “faerie wings.” I’m not using it as an ad hominem to disparage a statute that makes sense on its face. The part of the statute referring to acts in violation of US treaties is perfectly fine.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > some universal, God-given “law of nations.” I'm not an international lawyer, but my understanding is that for a very long time there has indeed been a generally-accepted "law of nations" that simply evolved by (more or less) common consent, not necessarily by any formal enactment on the part of some generally-accepted authority. Lex mercatoria ("the Law Merchant") comes to mind, as does the "right" of any nation to execute pirates captured on the high seas. The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
    - rayiner 2y ago
      > The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right. Sure. But that’s not “law” that’s the exercise of power. In 2024 we shouldn’t indulge the fiction that it’s more than that. The way it has been construed, the ATS empowers US courts to do whatever they want if some foreign conduct offends the sensibilities of some Americans. Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffickers? They can sue for violation of “the law of nations.” I’m not saying the US can’t do that, I’m saying it’s stupid and arrogant.
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        > Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffickers? They can sue for violation of “the law of nations.” Citation? In the mifepristone case just yesterday, SCOTUS reminded us of the need for "standing" — albeit while practically drawing a road map for other plaintiffs to try again. Question: Under your reasoning, are Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunctions, e.g., in the mifepristone case, similarly "stupid and arrogant," even though they're technically permissible under the All-Writs Act [which needs major revision IMHO]?
        rayiner 2y ago
        > Citation? In the mifepristone case just yesterday, SCOTUS reminded us of the need for "standing" — albeit while practically drawing a road map for other plaintiffs to try again. Some “human rights” group in the U.S. would just have to find a random Bangladeshi person (including a non-citizen) to claim some family member was killed in some supposedly “illegal” execution of drug dealers. > Question: Under your reasoning, are Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunctions, e.g., in the mifepristone case, similarly "stupid and arrogant," even though they're technically permissible under the All-Writs Act [which needs major revision IMHO]? No because he’s a judge of the same legal entity being enjoined. Unlike the national borders, the federal districts are mostly just lines in an org chart.

by pen2l 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

On this issue, I don't think there's been a change. I don't believe in universalism, which Americans on both the left and right tend to do. I opposed the Iraq War because I thought America had no business trying to bring democracy to Iraq (and knew Iraqi society couldn't handle democracy). Similarly, I oppose current U.S. efforts to impose universal norms. America shot a bunch of striking workers and polluted the environment on the way to becoming rich. Why shouldn't Bangladesh have that same prerogative?

freejazz 2y ago

It's just dress-up for really specious legal theories, such as we should disregard this statute because they believed in the "law of god" at the time, but of course, not any other law he would prefer not be overturned from that time.

rayiner 2y ago
I’m not arguing ad hominem. In this case, the nonsensical thing they believed makes the statute itself nonsensical: > The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. The highlighted part just doesn’t make sense unless you believe in some universal, God-given “law of nations.” In this context, the supernatural belief renders the statute itself nonsensical, like a law setting tariffs on imported “faerie wings.” I’m not using it as an ad hominem to disparage a statute that makes sense on its face. The part of the statute referring to acts in violation of US treaties is perfectly fine.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > some universal, God-given “law of nations.” I'm not an international lawyer, but my understanding is that for a very long time there has indeed been a generally-accepted "law of nations" that simply evolved by (more or less) common consent, not necessarily by any formal enactment on the part of some generally-accepted authority. Lex mercatoria ("the Law Merchant") comes to mind, as does the "right" of any nation to execute pirates captured on the high seas. The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right. Sure. But that’s not “law” that’s the exercise of power. In 2024 we shouldn’t indulge the fiction that it’s more than that. The way it has been construed, the ATS empowers US courts to do whatever they want if some foreign conduct offends the sensibilities of some Americans. Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffickers? They can sue for violation of “the law of nations.” I’m not saying the US can’t do that, I’m saying it’s stupid and arrogant.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffickers? They can sue for violation of “the law of nations.” Citation? In the mifepristone case just yesterday, SCOTUS reminded us of the need for "standing" — albeit while practically drawing a road map for other plaintiffs to try again. Question: Under your reasoning, are Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunctions, e.g., in the mifepristone case, similarly "stupid and arrogant," even though they're technically permissible under the All-Writs Act [which needs major revision IMHO]?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        > Citation? In the mifepristone case just yesterday, SCOTUS reminded us of the need for "standing" — albeit while practically drawing a road map for other plaintiffs to try again. Some “human rights” group in the U.S. would just have to find a random Bangladeshi person (including a non-citizen) to claim some family member was killed in some supposedly “illegal” execution of drug dealers. > Question: Under your reasoning, are Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunctions, e.g., in the mifepristone case, similarly "stupid and arrogant," even though they're technically permissible under the All-Writs Act [which needs major revision IMHO]? No because he’s a judge of the same legal entity being enjoined. Unlike the national borders, the federal districts are mostly just lines in an org chart.