Comments on: Governing With Judges

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:19:11 +0000

The EU is no more destructive of individual liberty than any other state. What is more, it is an enhancer of the political liberties of all EU citizen. The EU allows us at least to have an aggregate effect that no European individual country can have. Now nationalists who have dellusion of greatness, and no reasonable policy, may feel that when they cannot impose their politics it is bad, but that is not so straightforward. DSW

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:51 +0000

Randy, That’s a question with a very, very long answer. And this isn’t my blog, so and I don’t want to hijack it. But broadly, because I think the EU is destructive of individual liberty and has no corresponding benefits to the people whose liberty is being attacked. Note that I differentiate between an economic union, which is a great idea, and the political one, which seems to serve no pupose other than consolidating power for the few.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:04:01 +0000

“[...]are the ones who know, certainly not I (or is that ‘me’?).” Not being a native English user, I am not aware of most idomatical trait of the languge, but I feel that both “me” and “I” are acceptabre in this position. However “The people who know[s]is me.” seems better.

By: Joe Jupille

Joe Jupille — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:45:09 +0000

Please, those people you named above (and lots of others besides) are the ones who know, certainly not I (or is that ‘me’?).

By: Randy McDonald

Randy McDonald — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:48:44 +0000

Mr. Lyman, I’m curious: Why do you want the EU to collapse?

By: PK

PK — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:07:30 +0000

I’m surprised at you. “Between” takes an accusative pronoun. “…between Dan Drezner and me.”

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:52:19 +0000

On the burning and controversial ‘between’ question, my grammar texts suggest that the more common modern usage does indeed take the dative, but that there’s a strong minority position (taken by Shakespeare for one) that there should be two nominatives when there’s an ‘I’ involved. Doug – sure, courts are always making politics – the question is how much politics, and under what sorts of restraints. Joe – nice to see someone who really knows about this stuff commenting. Everyone else – if you really want to understand the effects of the Treaty texts and ECJ on day-to-day politics in the EU, you’re going to have to read Joe’s forthcoming book from Cambridge U P. It’s a major contribution to the field.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:33:34 +0000

Doug, That’s “Mr. Marshall,” but as you say, the quote is allegedly apocryphal. Still, it certainly does illustrate the relative weakness of the judiciary. I’m finding the whole EU process fascinating. Many of the struggles of the US, from more than 200 years ago (small vs. big states in the propsed constitution, the role of judges, etc.) are playing out before our very eyes. Personally, I’m expecting (and hoping for) the collapse of the EU, but then again, many Europeans expected and hoped for the collapse of the American Republic…

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:55:02 +0000

Henry, I think you and Dan will be able to have this debate for a long time. The US Supreme Court is often loathe to directly confront the executive, and the practical details of judicial supremacy are still sometimes contested, 210 years into the republic’s run. (An untraceable Jackson quote has sprung to mind, “Mr. Madison [or similar] has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!”) Thus even if an EU Constitution codifies the primacy of Union law, the struggles of actually implementing that supremacy will give you both fodder for the debate. What make you thing that courts aren’t in the business of making politics every day? Finally, why does “between” take an object with the plural (between us) and not with a multiple singular (between Dan and I)? Color me puzzled on that one.

By: raj

raj — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:34:57 +0000

Preposition “between” takes the dative case. “Me,” not “I” On the whole, though, your analysis is excellent.

By: Joe Jupille

Joe Jupille — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:25:54 +0000

A fourth option might also be likely: the ECJ rules in favor of the member states in the case at hand, but establishes some general principle of law that suits development of supranationalism in the long run. It just seems that, given the attention and (related) stakes, it will be hard for the ECJ to duck the case, though it would probably rather do so.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:39:19 +0000

Point 2 is already happening in the field of corporate taxation, where considerable amounts of anti-avoidance measures and various reliefs have been ruled to discriminate unfairly between companies resident in the EU-member country, and those resident in the rest of the EU. Something like 90% of tax cases going before the ECJ have gone in the taxpayers’ favour, going off the top of my head.

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:00:41 +0000

Ummm … nope. Not that I don’t make occasional mistakes (and I’m very grateful to be corrected when I do) but my understanding is that “between [another] and I” is perfectly acceptable English, if perhaps a little Latinate and archaic. It’s the “between [another] and me” folks who are the newcomers and interlopers, to be fended off at all costs ;)

By: can't resist

can't resist — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:52:52 +0000

Between Drezner and ME—your mother overcorrected you. Or maybe the mothers and their dutiful children have changed our grammar and the cause is lost.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:01:57 +0000

Let’s hope Drezner is right. A suprastate run, essentially, by Central Bankers is a nightmare. The inability of the EU to show any flexibility about state spending—especially at a time of worldwide deflation, one that seems to be ending with the fall of the dollar—has materially hurt France and Germany. It’s defenders call it a corrective—which is like saying castration is a birth control method. Having prepared for inflation for the past 12 years, the EU economists might celebrate their prescience as the bill comes due for America’s super-large deficits. But that is just foolishness, showing that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Hopefully, the court will rule against France and Germany, and they will defy the court. A triumph for democracy against a judiciary that represents the interests of a very narrow technocratic elite.