Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Justice Stevens Says Getting International Opinions a Responsible Practice
AP ^ | AP-ES-05-24-05 0119EDT | Jeanine Ibrahim

Posted on 05/23/2005 11:01:59 PM PDT by TheOtherOne

Supreme Court Justice Stevens Says Getting International Opinions a Responsible Practice

By Jeanine Ibrahim Associated Press Writer
Published: May 24, 2005 INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Allowing U.S. courts to consider the views of other judges - including international jurists - while making a decision is a responsible practice, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said during a speech Monday.

His comments related to a March decision by the Supreme Court that ruled it unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, ending a practice in 19 states that has been roundly condemned by many of America's closest allies.

The 5-4 decision threw out the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes and barred states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Justice Anthony Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.

Three of Stevens' fellow justices - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - have said foreign law has no relevance. Scalia has been increasingly critical of the practice in recent months, pointing to decisions in recent years to decriminalize gay sex and ban the execution of the mentally retarded.

The U.S. judiciary does not place too much importance on international opinion rather than obeying the provision that the Constitution and congressional acts combine to create "the supreme law of the land," Stevens said.

There is a vast difference between U.S. justices considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws, Stevens said at a meeting of the 7th Circuit Bar Association and Judicial Conference of the Seventh Circuit.

"We should not be impeached for the former," he said. "And we are not guilty of the latter."

AP-ES-05-24-05 0119EDT


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: internationallaw; intlopinion; johnpaulstevens; judiciary; scotus; sumpremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
Oh boy
1 posted on 05/23/2005 11:01:59 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

That kind of treasonous behavior ought to be good under the law for a hanging.


2 posted on 05/23/2005 11:03:13 PM PDT by Petronski (A champion of dance, my moves will put you in a trance, and I never leave the disco alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

This coupled with the news of the so called compromise in the Senate is enough to make any Nationalist sick to his or her stomach.


3 posted on 05/23/2005 11:05:17 PM PDT by bamaborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
There is a vast difference between U.S. justices (1) considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and (2) allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws, Stevens said at a meeting of the 7th Circuit Bar Association and Judicial Conference of the Seventh Circuit.

"We should not be impeached for the former," he said. "And we are not guilty of the latter."

4 posted on 05/23/2005 11:06:28 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

That is his defense. Of the opinions I have read, it is true, none have relied on foriegn or international law for precidence. Although it has started to creep in as dicta, etc.


5 posted on 05/23/2005 11:07:43 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: TheOtherOne
There is a vast difference between U.S. justices considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws, Stevens said

Liberal are sure good at "nuance".

7 posted on 05/23/2005 11:15:53 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sameoldstuff

You don't have to leave the country to live in a socialist state. Just go to Taxachoosetts!


8 posted on 05/23/2005 11:17:50 PM PDT by gr8eman (I think...therefore I am...a capitalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

I suppose he is consulting decisions from the Muslim communities.


9 posted on 05/23/2005 11:23:51 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Once was a Pepsi drinker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

that's a hanging offense


10 posted on 05/23/2005 11:24:52 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Wrong.


11 posted on 05/23/2005 11:28:09 PM PDT by martin_fierro (_____oooo_( ° ¿ ° )_oooo_____)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still far and away the worst.

She may be the most leftist individual to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

(I'm open to corrections)


12 posted on 05/23/2005 11:30:11 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Was Clinton that good, or did the Republicans just really abdicate their duty?


13 posted on 05/23/2005 11:33:58 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Gerald Ford's pathetic legacy is on display for everyone to see.


14 posted on 05/23/2005 11:36:00 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
There is a vast difference between U.S. justices (1) considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and (2) allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws

Yes, there's a vast difference. However, neither is relevant in interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Any suitably self-preserving state would have severe penalties for this crap.

15 posted on 05/23/2005 11:47:36 PM PDT by Petronski (A champion of dance, my moves will put you in a trance, and I never leave the disco alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Any suitably self-preserving state would have severe penalties for this crap.

Why, we do have penalties for just such an event..but no one with the (I'll be polite) intestinal fortitude to enforce them.

16 posted on 05/23/2005 11:53:13 PM PDT by garandgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

They went along to get along.

Just like now.

Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3.

Imagine that


17 posted on 05/24/2005 12:01:03 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3.

Wow, she must be really mainstream! 96, DAMN! So that must be at least 30 Republicans, I wonder how many are still serving, of those who voted yea on Ginsburg?

18 posted on 05/24/2005 12:07:34 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

I wish I could find who were the three who voted against her.

I bet that eccentric fellow from New Hampshire was one....Bob Smith.

Probably Jesse Helms too.

Damn I miss Helms...he was diligent.


19 posted on 05/24/2005 12:10:24 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
A zinger Jesse Helms quote:

Helms was one of only three senators to vote against Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court nomination. He stated that she was "likely to uphold the homosexual agenda."

Prophetic.

20 posted on 05/24/2005 12:12:37 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson