(Scroll to the bottom for references)
In 1999, the US Supreme Court accepted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief from two Jewish legal advocacy groups; the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA) and The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ); the briefing was reviewed by Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Rabbi Justice Elon (since retired).
The brief was prepared by Nathan and Alyza Lewin. The briefing was in favor of suspending a death sentence by electrocution in the state of Florida (Bryan v. Moore) with the stated intention being to uphold the 8th amendment which protects citizens from “cruel and unusual punishment”. The brief suggests that decapitation would be a suitable form of punishment; remember decapitation is the demanded form of execution for non-Jews who break any of the Noahide Laws. The Lewin team who submitted the brief have also promoted the Noahide Laws on the Supreme Court before (HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondent).
Later in 2002, at the launch of the National Institute for Judaic Law at the Supreme Court, the Lewins and the founder of the Institute, Norson Gurary, further introduced the Supreme Court Justices to Noahide Law. Finally in 2004, the Anti-Defamation League submitted a brief to the Supreme Court stating the Noahide Laws are "binding on the entire human race". The Noahide agenda has begun its influence in the Supreme Court.
-
The Lewins promote Noahide Law on the Supreme Court (HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondent)
A fundamental principle of the Jewish religious tradition is that any society – including a gentile community – must establish a judicial system to hear and decide civil controversies. Establishment of courts is deemed one of the basic seven commands that bind all Noahides – i.e., non-Jews.
SOURE: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL JEWISH COMMISSION
ON LAW AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS (“COLPA”) FILED ON BEHALF OF THEnORTHODOX JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS AND RABBINICAL COURTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER. HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents. No. 10-553. Retrieved 09/30/2020 from: https://www.lewinlewin.com/files/10-553tsacTheNationalJewishCommissionOnLawAndPublicAffairs.pdf
-
The brief was submitted by COLPA and IAJLJ and was reviewed by Justice Menachem Elon [ANTHONY BRADEN BRYAN (Petitioner) v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (Respondent)]
The conclusions regarding Jewish Law that we summarize in this brief were expressed in an opinion issued by the then Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Israel, the Honorable Menachem Elon, in State of Israel v. Tamir, 37(iii) P.D. 201 (1983). Justice Elon, who is now retired from the Israeli Supreme Court, has reviewed the text of this amicus brief and authorized us to state that he concurs with its conclusions
SOURCE: BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL JEWISH COMMISSION ON LAW AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ("COLPA") AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF JEWISH LAWYERS AND JURISTS (AMERICAN SECTION)("IAJLJ") AS AMICI CURIAEIN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. ANTHONY BRADEN BRYAN (Petitioner) v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS (Respondent). No. 99-6723. Retrieved 09/30/202 from: http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html
-
The brief promotes decapitation as being in line with the 8th amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
It is striking, we submit, that in prescribing methods for imposition of the death penalty almost two millennia ago, the rabbis of the Talmud were concerned about the same factors that have emerged from this Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Primary concerns under Talmudic law are (1) the prevention of unnecessary pain and (2) avoidance of mutilation or dismemberment of the body. As discussed below, the four means of execution described in the Talmud were designed to utilize the most effective technology and scientific knowledge available at the time, to minimize the pain of the person who was being put to death, and to avoid mutilation of his or her body. The methods described in the Talmud, therefore, differ significantly from what is commonly assumed from a reading of the Biblical text.
...
The Mishna (Sanhedrin 52b) describes execution by decapitation – which was invoked primarily for murderers – as the same form of capital punishment that was used at the time by civil rulers under the Roman legal system. The condemned person’s trachea and esophagus were severed with a sharp sword so that he would die instantly. When one rabbi of the Mishna suggested that it was too demeaning to the accused to be executed in a standing position because his body would slump to the floor and that, instead, his head should be positioned on a wooden chopping-block and removed with an ax, the majority of the rabbis responded that this was impermissible because it could result in even greater mutilation.
This discussion on the subject of decapitation reveals again how conscious the rabbis were of the obligations (1) to impose rapid death, (2) to minimize pain, and (3) to avoid mutilation. In actual administration of this form of execution, they sought to achieve these objectives. The discussion of this form of execution was again concluded with the previously cited observation, attributed to one Rabbi Nachman, quoting Rabba the son of Avuha: "Scripture states, ‘You shall love your fellow as yourself’ so that you must choose for him a humane death." This admonition is repeated in the Talmudic tractates Pesachim (75a) and Ketubot (37a).
SOURCE: BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL JEWISH COMMISSION ON LAW AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ("COLPA") AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF JEWISH LAWYERS AND JURISTS (AMERICAN SECTION)("IAJLJ") AS AMICI CURIAEIN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. ANTHONY BRADEN BRYAN (Petitioner) v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS (Respondent). No. 99-6723. Retrieved 09/30/2020 from: http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html
-
The Lewins and Norson Gurary launch National Institure of Judaic Law at Supreme Court
The launch of the Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law was marked Tuesday night with a kosher dinner at the Supreme Court attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices – Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia.
...
Scalia, in a letter to the institute’s founder, Noson Gurary, wrote that “Jewish law is certainly one of the oldest and most highly developed systems” and explained why the comparative study of legal traditions was beneficial.
“The idea is to make Jewish law more accessible to everyone,” said Washington lawyer Alyza Lewin. Both Lewin and her father Nathan Lewin are helping establish the institute.
Last year, Alyza Lewin filed a brief to the Supreme Court based on the Talmud’s take on capital punishment when the court was readying to hear a case on the constitutionality of the electric chair.
SOURCE: Janine Zachria (2002). 'Jewish law institute launched in DC'. The Jerusalem Post. 9 Nov 2002. Retrieved 09/30/2020 from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8aETd3tQ69fdGVKRUVncWxpcU0/view
-
Norson Gurary introduced the Chief Justices to the Noahide Laws
Chabad’s Rabbi Nosson Gurary of Buffalo befriended Justice Scalia at Buffalo Law School and he came down to Washington to talk to him and other justices about starting an institute on Jewish law, which unfortunately never really got off the ground.
But with the understanding that it was going to begin, Justices Scalia and Ginsburg – and I think Breyer – agreed to be part of a kosher dinner in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court. I think it was the only truly kosher dinner ever held there, and I was asked to be the emcee.
It turned out that the Daf Yomi that day talked about the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach [one of which is establishing] courts, so I distributed the sections of that daf and we even learned a piece of it.
SOURCE: Molly Resnick (2018). 'On Menorahs, Yarmulkes, And Circumcision Bans: An Interview With Famed Attorney Nathan Lewin'. The Jewish Press. November 28, 2018. Retrieved 09/30/2020 from: https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/on-menorahs-yarmulkes-and-circumcision-bans-an-interview-with-famed-attorney-nathan-lewin/2018/11/28/
-
Anti-Defamation League tells the Supreme Court the Noahide Laws are "binding on the entire human race"
"The Torah narrates several binding legal agreements between God and human beings. In Genesis, for example, God directs Noah, the other survivors of the great flood, and their descendants – in other words, all of humanity at that time – to populate the earth, not to eat living meat, and not to shed human blood because humanity is created in the divine image. Genesis 9:1-11. Eventually, the rabbis referred to these commands (along with God’s commands to Adam and Eve) as the Noahide commands, which are binding on the entire human race."
SOURCE: "BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE AND PHILIP A. CUNNINGHAM, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CHRISTIAN-JEWISH LEARNING AT BOSTON COLLEGE, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER IN NO. 03-1500, AND IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS IN NO. 03-1693". McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., Petitioners, v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY, et al., Respondents. Retrieved 08/11/2020 from: https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/civil-rights/adl-in-the-courts/amicus-briefs/brief-pdfs/ab-2005-van-orden-v-perry-mccreary-cnty-kentucky-v-aclu-kentucky.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment