Ummm..I'm old fashioned...but these justices are supposed to be interpreting law based on the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. The end. It does not matter what someone in some other country has to say about an issue. The Court is not supposed to be a factory for social policy. It is to test legislation and regulation against the Constitution of the United States of America. This concerns me. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030803/ap_on_go_su_co/ginsburg_3 Ginsburg: Int'l Law Shaped Court Rulings Sat Aug 2, 9:48 PM ET By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) said Saturday. The justices referred to the findings of foreign courts this summer in their own ruling that states may not punish gay couples for having sex. And in 2002, the court said that executing mentally r****ded people is unconstitutionally cruel. That ruling noted that the practice was opposed internationally. "Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention. Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions. The shift has angered some conservatives. Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), in the gay sex case, wrote with two colleagues that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans." David Rivkin Jr., a conservative Washington attorney, said foreign trends can be helpful to legislators in setting policy, but not to judges in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Last month, Ginsburg and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour. France outlawed the death penalty in 1981. Ginsburg was one of five justices who attended a conference on the European constitution. Ginsburg said Saturday that the Internet is making decisions of courts in other countries more readily available in America, and they should not be ignored. "While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others." ___
The Constitution trumps all treaties, supposedly. But I guess not anymore. This is damned scary. Goodbye Bill of Rights....hello U.N. rules and taxes. See why my party platform has a plank to get us out of the U.N.?
To me it's not that sinister bamaslammer...it's just a misplaced definition for the Court. A misunderstood role...a creation of a new role for the Court, perhaps.
Is there a constitutional rationalization for the appeals to foreign judiciaries? Do the justices cite a constitutional rationalization? For what it's worth, I watched Souter (I think) in an interview w/ Stephanopolous and he said the same thing. Madame Day was right beside him and she did not correct her junior justice.
