U.S. Supreme Court: Germany Can't Be Sued In Nazi Stolen Art Case, Guelph Treasure Owned By Goering

[appalachiablue]

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2021, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

- The medieval portable altar of Eilbertus, a part of the Guelph treasure at the Bode Museum in Berlin. The precious collection of medieval Christian art was at the center of a complicated ownership dispute at the U.S. Supreme Court.
____________

(NPR, Feb. 3). The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Germany Wednesday in a dispute over artworks obtained by the Nazis from German Jewish collectors in 1935. The court unanimously rejected a lower court ruling that had allowed the heirs of the one-time owners to proceed with their claim that the sale had been coerced. At the center of the case is the so-called Guelph treasure, one of the most famous collections of medieval artifacts in existence. Now valued at $250 million, it has long been on display in a German state museum in Berlin.

Jed Lieber, one of the heirs, claims his grandfather and the other two owners of the collection were forced by the Nazis to sell for a fraction of the collection's value. "This was purchased by Hermann Goering, perhaps one of the most notorious art thieves of all time for his pal, Adolf Hitler, the monster who killed 6 million people," Leiber said in in interview last December. In 2015, the heirs sued in the U.S. for return of the collection, but the Republic of Germany, backed by the Trump administration, sought to block the lawsuit, and on Wednesday prevailed.

Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that in a case like this one involving international law as well as domestic law, "We do not look to the law of genocide ... we look to the law of property." And under both U.S. law and international law, a taking of property can be "wrongful" only where a country deprives an "alien," a foreigner, of property. Wednesday's decision involved the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which establishes the rules of the road for how the U.S. treats other countries in litigation. As Roberts put it, the FSIA has long recognized that U.S. "law governs domestically but does not rule the world." And he pointedly observed that the U.S. might well balk too if some of its historically bad behavior- say slavery or the internment of the Japanese in World War II- were punished by courts in other countries.

..The justices, however, did not put a complete end to the Nazi art case. Instead, they sent it back to the lower court for arguments as to whether the Nazis' unique criminal treatment of German Jews put this claim outside the norm because the Jewish victims were no longer considered German citizens. Parzinger, in his statement, said: "We look forward to presenting robust legal arguments for the dismissal of this lawsuit."...

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/03/963688893/supreme-court-says-germany-cant-be-sued-in-nazi-era-art-case



- Guelph treasure, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelph_Treasure

[appalachiablue]

2. Heavens no, the reason they were appointed.

the court must be balanced somehow..

[BigmanPigman]

3. Last week Rachel Maddow asked Schumer about balancing SCOTUS

and Schumer seemed like he likes the idea but he is going to wait for some commission to review this issue and that should take 6 months.

[appalachiablue]

4. We really need reform, I hope Dems move on this soon

[BigmanPigman]

5. I know. I don't want to wait 6 months.

Especially since Rachel just said McConnell wasted a whole month and we need every month we can get before the midterms.

[appalachiablue]

6. Two years is what we have, then another huge showdown!

[gladium et scutum]

8. it was was a unamous decision

that means the liberal justices of the court agreed with the conservative justices of the court in this decision. What reform do you suggest when the liberal members of the Court agree with the Conservative members of the Court?

[gladium et scutum]

7. Balanced?

According to the article, the Court's decision was unanimous. How do you balance that?