one Republican, one Democrat, bothrngood friends.rnBoth had voted for the 1999 bombing,rnalthough my Republican colleague hadrnvoted for it only because he felt he had torn”support our troops.” I had not only votedrnagainst it, but had spoken against itrnseveral times on the House floor. I hadrnsaid, repeatedly, that we were bombingrnpeople who would like to be our friends.rnEven more importantly, I said we shouldrnnot bomb people unless there was a realrnthreat to our national security or a vitalrnU.S. interest at stake. Neither, in myrnopinion, required the bombing of Yugoslavia.rnWe went to Belgrade to confirm the releasernof the second half of a $100-millionrnaid package. We met, at separate timesrnand places, with members of parliament,rnSerbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindic,rnand President Vojislav Kostunica.rnIn Chronicles and State Departmentrnbriefing papers, I had read that Kostrmicarnis a nationalist and the Yugoslav officialrnmost averse to trying Slobodan Milosevicrnin the International Tribunal at ThernHague rather than in the local courts ofrnSerbia.rn”Nafionalist” has become a bad wordrnto liberal intelligentsia around the worldrnand to most in the U.S. Foreign Service,rnwho have served so long in other countriesrnthat they seem to pride themselvesrnon being citizens of the World ratherrnthan of the United States. They regardrnanyone with patriotic, nationalistic feelingsrnand beliefs as unenlightened, xenophobic,rnpossibly racist, and certainly notrnsophisticated, cosmopolitan, and forward-rnthinking (like themselves).rnIn each meeting, I said that, as a formerrncriminal court judge (for seven-anda-rnhalf years before going to Congress), Irncould understand the Serbian desire torntr)’ Milosevic in the courts of Yugoslavia.rnMoreover, most Americans probablyrndo not know or care that there is an InternationalrnWar Crimes Tribunal in ThernHague.rnI am in no way defending Milosevic.rnHe was a communist who committedrnhorrible crimes while in power. However,rnwe should not be telling anotherrncountry how to handle its own criminals.rnThere is some inconsistency in our refusalrnto join the International CriminalrnCourt (which we should not do), only tornorder Yugoslavia to ship Milosevic to ThernHague. (I am sure that most in our ownrnState Department and Foreign Servicernbelieve it is terrible that we have notrnsigned on to the International CriminalrnCourt.)rnThose who so desperately want Milosevicrntried by the International WarrnCrimes Tribunal apparently believe thisrnwould somehow justify the mess theyrnmade in the Balkans, which resulted inrnhundreds of thousands more forced fromrntheir homes and many thousands morernkilled than if we had simply let the peoplernin that region work things out on theirrnown.rnWhen I first went to Yugoslavia aboutrnsix years ago, I witnessed huge demonstrationsrnagainst Milosevic. Former PresidentrnClinton promised that we would bernout of Bosnia by the end of 1996, yet almostrnall of our actions either prolongedrnthings or made the situation worse, keepingrnMilosevic in power longer.rnOne of the worst things we did in Yugoslaviarnwas to turn NATO from a purelyrndefensive organization into an offensivernwar-making machine. Rather than recognizingrnthat NATO had long ago servedrnits purpose and closing it down, the samernpeople who got us into the Balkans messrnkeep expanding NATO, committing usrnto going to war in even more places in thernfuture.rnIn recent years, we have wasted billionsrnof taxpayer dollars in Haiti, Rwanda,rnSomalia, Bosnia, Kosovo—and perhapsrnnext, Macedonia. In Iraq, we arernspending four million dollars a day morernthan a decade after a “war” in which Iraqirntroops surrendered to TV camera crewsrnor anyone who would take them. ThernUnited States has a CNN foreign policy:rnWe send our troops and huge amoimts ofrnmoney into any small war that is feahiredrnon the nightly news.rnBecause we so often see a map of thernUnited States on one page in a book, wernsometimes forget how unbelievably hugernthis country really is. I hope that, somehow,rnour national leaders will developrnthe humility to be satisfied with attemptingrnto manage the United States of America,rnrather than wanting to micromanagernthe entire world.rn—Rep. John ]. Duncan, Jr.rn”BORKING” is back. The eponymousrnactivity first perpetrated on JudgernRobert Bork when he was nominated forrna seat on the United States SupremernCourt is the practice of painting a proposedrnjudicial appointee as consciouslyrndemonic, in order to excite particular interestrngroups to oppose his appointment.rnSome might oppose Borkees because ofrnhonest differences over judicial perspective,rnbut this is certainly not required.rnThe Ur-Borker was Sen. Edward Kennedy,rnwho, when President Ronald Reaganrnnominated Bork to the Court inrn1987, intoned on the floor of the Senaternthat “Robert Bork’s America is a land inrnwhich women would be forced into backalleyrnabortions, blacks would sit at segregatedrnlunch counters, rogue police couldrnbreak down citizens’ doors in midnightrnraids, schoolchildren could not be taughtrnabout evolution, writers and artists wouldrnbe censored at the whim of government,rnand the doors of the Federal courts wouldrnbe shut on the fingers of millions of citizensrnfor whom the judiciary is often thernonly protector of the individual rightsrnthat are the heart of our democracy.” AsrnBork reported in his biographical accountrnof the incident, Senator Kennedyrnexplained to the besieged nominee thatrnhis remarks were “nothing personal.” It isrndifficult not to conclude that Kennedyrnknew his anti-Bork rhetoric was a totalrnfabrication. We may be about to sec thernsame activity on an even greater scale.rnOver the course of the next four years,rnPresident George W. Bush will have thernopportimity to remake the federal judiciaryrnin whatever image he chooses.rnWhen he was campaigning, candidaternBush said he would appoint judges closernto the judicial mold of Supreme CourtrnAssociate Justices Antonin Scalia andrnClarence Thomas. This was explainedrnto mean that Bush wanted jurists whornwould not legislate from the bench butrninstead interpret the Constitution accordingrnto its original understanding.rnFour years is often enough time to appointrna sitting majorit)’ of lower federalrncourt judges; since turnover rates for thernfederal judiciary may be accelerating,rnthere is a very real prospect that Bush appointeesrnmay soon be the dominant forcernin jurisprudence. Indeed, several vacanciesrnmay open up on the Supreme Courtrnwithin two or three years, and the closelyrndivided Court may change dramaticallyrnin character.rnIf Bush keeps his campaign promises,rnthe era when the federal courts dramaticallyrncut back on traditional state prerogativesrnin areas of morality, education, lawrnenforcement, legislative apportionment,rnand other matters may be coming to arnclose. The control of policy by litigationrn(and, indeed, the use of the courts by litigantsrnand their law)’ers to frustrate state civil-rnjustice reform) might just be imperiled.rnJULY 2001/7rnrnrn