“Caterpillar Inc. cannot be held legally liable for the use of its bulldozers in Israeli military operations because the equipment is paid for with American government funds and represents an extension of American foreign policy, a federal appeals court ruled.” (Josh Gerstein, “Caterpillar Escapes Liability For Israeli Bulldozer Operations”, New York Sun, Sept. 18). The court invoked the political question doctrine: “Allowing this action to proceed would necessarily require the judicial branch of our government to question the political branches’ decision to grant extensive military aid to Israel. …In this regard, we are mindful of the potential for causing international embarrassment were a federal court to undermine foreign policy decisions in the sensitive context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” (Dan McLaughlin, Sept. 18). Earlier coverage on this site is here.
“The Corrie family was represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Seattle University Law School’s Human Rights Clinic.” (John G. Browning, “Legally Speaking; Sue the bulldozer company, and get crushed by common sense”, Southeast Texas Record, Sept. 11). Joining the family’s cause on appeal was Duke lawprof Erwin Chemerinsky, who, unrelatedly, has now been restored to an offered position as dean of the new UC Irvine school of law, following a bizarre offer-withdrawal that drew protests from across the political spectrum. Ken McCracken at Say Anything comments (Sept. 17) about the Ninth Circuit decision and the Irvine reinstatement, “For Chemerinsky, justice was served correctly to him in both instances.” More: Michael Krauss @ PoL.
9 Comments
That old chestnut about a stopped clock being right twice a day comes to mind.
A sound decision by the court, although it might come as a surprise to some that running over left-wing American girls with a bulldozer is “official U.S. policy.” But never mind. As the Walt and Mearsheimer reception shows, breathing sideways about Israel can be fatal. The 9th Circuit surely gets this, as much as any journalist or member of Congress.
I’m no lefty, I don’t celebrate Marxist college student adventures in hostile territory, and I support Israel’s sovereignty. But it still nags at me that this isn’t how a suit involving South Africa’s policies would go – and the same folks arguing for their liability would be arguing against Israel’s. Harumph.
I find it interesting that Professor Chemerinsky’s deep concern for injustice didn’t extend to the Duke Lacrosse players. Where was he when they were being railroaded to prison under his very nose? Not surprisingly, he was nowhere to be seen. I guess when you are supporting terrorist enablers it is hard to find the time to fight real injustice.
wow, i need to become a lawyer and liberal. you can sue a knife company knowing that they know that a knife could kill someone.
The Duke students had competent representation, and there was an African- American Professor at Duke who spoke out correctly on the case, after he studied the situation.
Professor Chemerinsky ‘s chose to keep out of the limelight. I think that he did the right thing.
Seems to me they shouldn’t have even have had to take into account how this might affect US policy towards Israel. They could have just said Caterpillar isn’t responsible for the actions of driver of a vehicle legally purchased from them. That’s like suing Ford every time someone gets hit by a car. Corrie’s death was easily avoidable – don’t stand in front of a moving bulldozer, duh.
Plus, we can’t have our citizens going around the world to the most troubled locations, running into the middle of a firefight and shouting, “Cease firing! I’m an American!”.
If we hear that Mexican police are beating suspects with electrical cable, do we need to stop selling electrical cable to Mexico?
William, nobody was looking for Professor Chemerinsky to represent the Duke students. What I was looking for was for him to speak out against injustice. However, because the Duke students were not the right type of victims, unlike Professor Coleman, he chose not to speak out. That says volumes about the type of person he is.
I think that he did the right thing.
Would you care to explain that statement?
Professor Coleman was involved in an offical (maybe semi) investigation of the Duke matter. He spoke out against Mr. Nifong, after he studied the matter in detail. His comments carried great weight with me.
Professor Chemerinsky, like the gang of 88, did not have the grounding in facts that Professor Coleman had. To me it was good that Professor Chemerinsky let Professor Coleman’s soft spoken but firm comments have their effect. I was very impressed by Professor Coleman.
Please forgive my repetition. Mike Nifong is not that unique. We really need a discussion of how rape charges should be handled. Using “the woman must be right” as an absolute rule leads to errors such as The Duke Case, and the Mark Chmura Case.
Chmura was vindicated when his accusor blurted out that the bathroom was too small for her story to be true. But in that case there was the accusation of abuse of privilege and a (non-racial) siding up in the community.