Stephen Breyer -- The Court and the World
===========================================

Possibly, Breyer has two central points: (1) that the Supreme court
especially, and possibly other courts in the U.S. as well, will
increasingly need to deal with cases that have foreign and
international connections, perhaps because the interested parties
come from or have foreign connections, perhaps because the case
itself is effected by international situations or has international
consequences; and (2) that Justices will increasingly need to be
informed about international events, international history, and
international law as well as law from other countries.

Some additional points that Breyer discusses:

- When the security of the nation/state is threatened, do not expect
  normal law to apply, or at least not to have the strength that it
  might normally have.  Yes, but, surely there is a difference
  between a time of threat to the existence of the nation or its
  government, on the one hand, and threats to *some* of its
  citizens, on the other.  In the first case, certainly, we need to
  mobilize all the citizens and resources of the nation for the
  purpose of its defence, whereas in the second case, we need police
  action and, especially the rule of law.

- Foreign affairs are different from domestic ones.  The President
  of the U.S. has broader, stronger powers with respect to foreign
  affairs than the U.S. Congress, in comparison to the President's
  and Congress's relative power with respect to domestic affairs.

- That an official, for example the President of the U.S. has a
  power to do something does not automatically imply that this
  official has the power to *delegate* that power to someone else.
  For example, the President of the U.S. has the power of clemency,
  and can grant pardons and commute sentences.  But, it does not
  follow that the President can delegate the power to do so to
  another official.

A question that Breyer deals with -- If we suppose that the U.S.
Supreme Court has the duty to limit the power of the President of the
U.S. especially powers assumed during and because of the "War on
Terror", then (1) how and by what mechanisms is it to do so; and
(2) how is it to become informed and what does it need to know in
order to do so, given that for security reasons some information may
be classified and available only to the President, possibly even due
to the President's orders.

Breyer stresses that other current modern democracies and their
courts have also worked on and are developing solutions to some of
these problems.  We and our courts can learn from their work,
writings, court cases, and laws, and still not merely adopt their
solutions without consideration and adaptation.  This is especially
relevant to limits on executive power and to actions based on the
"War on Terror".

In addition, the Court must understand the threats (e.g., terrorist
threats) themselves, and this requires information from outside the
U.S. and possibly information that is classified as secret.

This is an extremely informative book, in part because Breyer works
hard to explain relevant, related prior cases and to show why and
how they relate to his current topic.  What also makes "The Court
and the World" so helpful and informative is Breyer's care in
explaining what basis the U.S. Supreme Court used to reach specific
past decisions and because he even, in some cases, reports the
thinking of members of the Court while doing so, for example, based
on their written notes, memoirs, etc.

I wish for and feel we have a need for an equally detailed and
educational book like this one but about the case of Citizens v.
United and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to campaign
finance law.

Still, for the range of cases that Breyer covers, this is an
extremely informative book.  If you want to read more about the law,
it's a great read.

11/09/2015

.. vim: ft=rst: