Mr.Ben-David’s position that justices should be appointed with the advise and consent of the peoples’ representatives not by a judicial clique is well-taken and would enable a chance for diverse opinions to be considered not just those of a certain philisophical or political stripe.The genius of the American system is that it works quite well .A perfect example was Justice Scalia’s position on punitive damages, something near and dear to we “tort lawyers” Here is a guy who some might call the most conservative judge on the Court saying punitive damages are ok as long as they reflect the culpability of the defendant and the magnitude of the wrong ;the verdict has to meet that criteria and the monetary damages reflect both elements.

For the record, and as I say in all three of my books, my view of Jewish (and most other) nationalism would be nicely summarized by Ahad Haam’s wonderful essay, “Imitation and Assimilation.” When I read Yehuda Amichai, I have no doubt about the purpose and grandeur of the Jewish national project–in fact, I suggest it is rich enough to invite non-Jewish minorities to participate. What I argue is that national identity is learned; that Zionists helped us see how “Jewish” need not be a blood-type.

I have also written directly, in my book and elsewhere, about the importance of religious imagination and (what William James calls) religious experience. In chapter three of “The Hebrew Republic” I write, for example: “Nor does opposition to a state religion mean opposition to religious imagination. People give prayer, Emerson said, the way trees give apples: the most elementary religious questions are finally inescapable and, lacking answers, sublime. A great many Israeli democrats claim to be deaf to these questions, but then they wonder why their children linger on the banks of the Ganges or, indeed, are drawn to cultish forms of Halakha.”

As for Obama, it is obvious that his “Dreams From My Father” is another book you haven’t read.

Haim. we are (and will remain) friends. I hope I will not forfeit your appreciation for “my warm and generous heart” when I say these summary judgments are unworthy of us both.

EVERY single member of the 1954 Warren Court that ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education was a former politician. Like Clif states, they are the ones who understand the people, not ivory tower elitists like Barak and the current Israeli Supreme Court.

If there is any such thing as progress, I think it is in the impartiality of the law to our identities and a respect for that law. That, to me, means advanced civilization.

The fact that it took so long for the plight of African-Americans to be recognized even though the law that would recognize them was there all along is proof that law can be twisted every which way if not outright ignored by a majority. One man, one vote? Well then certain people must not be men. Problem solved.

But people have to come to an appreciation of this independence of law. They can’t have it rammed down their throats. The best way to see the value is by experiencing the lack of it and the difficulty there is that those most likely to appreciate it are minorities not in a position to change things as they live under a majority concerned primarily with maintaining power.

It’s pertinent that Brown vs. Board of Education came about through the actions of a Supreme Court made up entirely of members of the majority who were able to see the injustice of the situation and reach a unanimous decision. That quiet intellectual act came well before the on-the-street events that so many remember as the Civil Rights Movement in the 60′s