The Least Dangerous Branch.

[Friedrich]

Kim Lueddeki, "Garfield Replaces Labor Counsel and City Attorney," in
"The Record," July 5, 2012, at p. L-2. ("Kim Lueddeki" may be Kim
Guardagno, counsel to Governor Christie. No conflict of interest,
OAE?)

Mark Scott, "Parliament Questions Culture at Barclays," in "The New
York Times," July 11, 2012, at p. B1. ("So Black and So Blue in
Prison" and "America's Holocaust.")

Edwardo Porter, "The Spreading Scourge of Corporate Corruption," in
"The New York Times," July 3, 2012, at p. A10.

AP, "Closing in On the 'God Particle': Scientists to Unveil Data on
Building Block of Matter," in "The Record," July 3, 2012, at p. A-13.

America and perhaps the Western world is in the midst of a crisis of
authority and, therefore, of confidence.

More than technology or resources -- or levels of population -- the
crisis explains the relative decline not only of America, but of
"occidental civilization."

This suspect terminology (occidental versus oriental) is archaic and
not my chosen vocabulary, but there seems to be no alternative yet to
the terms inherited from the nineteenth century's "Age of
Imperialism."

We live in the "Age of Money." Money has no nationality or allegiances
except to more money. Money flows to environments that favor its
comfort and care, which means locations with "predictable and stable
institutions" that function efficiently and well.

This good functioning of institutions usually requires ETHICAL
constraints on power. Thus, for example, Mr. Assad's Syria does not
attract capital from investors whereas Hong Kong does.

Money is a lot like your uncle Sheldon who moved to West Palm Beach
after retiring -- despite a lifetime in New York going to all the
shows and enjoying the party circuit -- because, in old age, he took a
liking to "peace and quiet."

Money likes "peace and quiet."

America's institutions and culture have become less peaceful and quiet
than they used to be, also much more unpredictable and unethical -- or
even criminal -- as in New Jersey. ("New Jersey's Feces-Covered
Supreme Court" and "New Jersey's Legal System is a Whore House.")

One reason for this national transition and decay is profoundly
cultural, with roots that can be traced back for a century or more;
while the other reason is political dating from the sixties. (Compare
"Nihilists in Disneyworld" with "All you need is love.")

I cannot dwell on the complexities in our current crisis of authority
because I only have 45 minutes. I also cannot edit or amend my text at
Google Groups. Suffice it to say that, just as scientists and others
predicted that the Higgs field boson (God Particle) would be
established to exist with the construction of the supercollider,
strictly on the basis of evidence and logic, so it should be possible
to predict correct Constitutional conclusions on the basis of neutral
principles of law and cogent reasoning. Politics should not enter into
the process of U.S. Supreme Court decisions -- in theory. The reality
is quite different. ("Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory" and
"Ronald Dworkin's Jurisprudence of Interpretation.")

The baffling decision by Chief Justice Roberts in the so-called "Obama
Care" case is illustrative of the desperation, confusion, -- also
possible brilliance -- in response to the crisis which affects the
courts along with all other institutions. One public official, the
U.S. Chief Justice, senses the real threat to the Court's legitimacy
from the public perception of political bias in decision-making among
the nine justices. ("Decline in Respect for U.S. Supreme Court.")

Mr. Roberts sought to meliorate the problem by "finessing the place of
the Supreme Court in the political world," in the words of torture-
apologist and Republican standard-bearer, John Yoo. However, this
tactic further weakens the Court's claim to transcend partisan
politics in its reasoning as our only true "forum of principle."

In a "Marbury v. Madison"-like move, the Chief Justice may have
responded to a genuinely or potentially devastating (if accurate)
perception of the Court's political reality by means of a consciously
"politically legitimating" move that conveys a useful (if inaccurate)
image of apolitical decision-making among the justices of the United
States Supreme Court. Please refer to Alexander Bickel's classic
treatise on Constitutional theory: "The Least Dangerous
Branch." ("Don't worry about us, we're not political.")

The Chief has revealed himself to be a consumate politician and a
magnificent illusionist by manipulating impressions of non-
partisanship in order to protect what he correctly sees as a
threatened institution, one of many, which has been losing moral
authority by the minute. ("Albert Florence and American Racism.")

The Obama Care result immediately reversed the trend (44% approval for
the justices before the decision and 55% after), for the time being.
The Court will not survive if it remains for long below 50% in
acceptance levels among Americans. Doubts now concern the long-term
effects of the Chief;'s decision on the jurisprudence of the Court and
upon the "shadow play" of images in America's passionate election
season. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")

New Jersey's legal system and Supreme Court are prime examples of what
a legal system must not become. Garfield is replacing one set of town
lawyers with another group of connected attorneys loyal to the recent
political victors. The new "in-group" features John Bruno, who must
have several other public jobs (variations in compensation and
benefits in Garfield notwithstanding) in addition to his private law
practice.

The public jobs are rewards for Mr. Bruno's services rendered to
political godfathers and bosses, like Bob Menendez or Big Nicky Sacco.
Hence, no OAE problem for Mr. Bruno is likely. Although rumors
indicate that Mr. Bruno has serious ethics troubles today. Mr. Bruno
has probably visited my sites and may have tried to argue over
"philosophy" with me. ("How censorship works in America" and
"Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")

How much did you kickback or "contribute" to New Jersey Democrats,
John Bruno? Who recruited you to come after me, John Bruno? Jay
Romano? Bob Menendez? Shame on you, John Bruno and John McGill. ("New
Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney
Ethics.")