Justice O'Connor: U.S. must rely on foreign law

WND ^

[stop_fascism]

As far as I can see, there are two reasons that the Supremes are needed. One, legislatures keep passing laws. Someone has to determine if they meet constitutional muster.

Second, new situations arise, and the constitution has to be interpreted in light of those situations. For instance, the internet is not mentioned in the constitution. However, it seems reasonable that those parts of the constituion that apply to a printing press apply to the internet.

In either case, how does one interpret the constituion? First the judges might try reading it. That is the Clarence Thomas method. If it is somehow ambiguous, you can go to the writings of those who created the constitution, and see what they meant. That's the Bork method.

The method that O'Connor is recommending is that you ignore the constitution, put your finger in the wind, and rule in what ever way happens to be popular. Today, that's European Socialist opinion. Tomorrow, it might be Scharia. In either case, its just wrong.

We have a constituion, that has served us well. If it needs to be updated, there is an amendment process. If I wanted to be ruled by European opinion, I'd move to Europe.

[Darksheare]

The 73-year-old justice proves she's senile and should be removed.

[tdadams]

The method that O'Connor is recommending is that you ignore the constitution, put your finger in the wind, and rule in what ever way happens to be popular. Today, that's European Socialist opinion. Tomorrow, it might be Scharia.

Hmm, yeah, I don't think so. I wonder, do you hear Martians speaking to you through your dental fillings?

[stop_fascism]

That's uncalled for. It's amazing how quickly some people around here stoop to ad hominem attacks.

[veryone]

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm



Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[DMZFrank]

Why , oh why will none of our Congressional "representatives" ever consider impeaching any of these federal philosopher kings when they make legal rulings that are not founded in constitutional or common law? NOW we have to worry about them using furrin' law for precedent. SHEESH!

[Rodney King]

I could, perhaps, entertain the position that US courts could observe the development of certain issues in the courts of other common law countries. For example, on a theoretical issue that has not been litigated in the US, but has a 60 year litigation history in Australia, it would be worthwhile to observe the consequences that certain rulings have had over time in order to try not to make the same mistakes here that might have been made in Australia. However, European courts in particular are not common law, and so by paying attention to them you are really just paying attention to the European politicians.

[tdadams]

Maybe so, but I'm bewildered by some of the rhetoric around here that's simply, plainly without any credibility. I mean, really, I have to wonder what you're thinking when you say that the U.S. Supreme Court may very well adopt rulings of Sharia law. I'm simply bewildered by that statement.

Do you honestly believe that? If so, I really do think you're out of touch with reality and what I said wasn't an ad hominem. I hope maybe you made that statement in a hasty bit of hyperbole, but if you stand by that then I really do wonder about your mental health.

[BenR2]

Impeach her!

/////////////
Right. I expect Senator Milquetoast (R-Anystate) to introduce such a measure on the floor of the Senate shortly after hell freezes over.

[BenR2]

Maybe so, but I'm bewildered by some of the rhetoric around here that's simply, plainly without any credibility. I mean, really, I have to wonder what you're thinking when you say that the U.S. Supreme Court may very well adopt rulings of Sharia law. I'm simply bewildered by that statement.

///////////////////
Uhh. Hello? Endorsing the gay agenda (by a majority of the Supreme Court) would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

Try to think ahead a few years. Your bewilderment is much overdone.

[Radioactive]

TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS---TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS---TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS---TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS---TAR AND FEATHERS---TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS-TAR AND FEATHERS-TAR AND FEATHERS-TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS--TAR AND FEATHERS---ETC.ETC.ETC.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Well here in LearnsFromMistakes-Land, we retire judges at 73 after 1 stupid comment. She should start by honoring the well established law here in LearnsFromMistakes-Land. Earn her a lot of goodwill...

[jordan8]

Always bear in mind that a judge is just a cross between a lawyer and a politician. O'Conner is worse than most. Here is a bit of bio:

In 1965, Sandra Day O'Connor went to work on a part-time basis for the Arizona attorney general's office. In 1969 she was appointed to the state Senate and was subsequently re-elected to that position. In 1973 Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman to serve as the majority leader of a state Senate.

Politicians are whores by nature, especially in the American system, and it's as difficult to uncorrupt their souls once they've reached a level like majority leader of a state senate as it is to reform actual whores.

It's also a good example of what you get from tokenist politics. She was appointed by Reagan for no other reason than the fact that she was a woman. You'd never let the person who works on your aircraft engine, or even your car engine, be selected by this or any similar criterion, but I guess it's a good enough method to select someone who's just getting the power to pound and grind the Constitution like raw hamburger.

[tdadams]

Endorsing the gay agenda (by a majority of the Supreme Court) would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

So, upholding the equal protection clause is, to your mind, endorsing the gay agenda? Kudos for at least putting your bias right out on the table.

But notwithstanding your mendacity, your conclusion is also wrong. Bowers v. Harwick was the last sodomy case to come before the Supreme Court in 1986 (17 years ago, i.e. more than ten years ago). Far from being "unthinkable", the general legal consensus at the time predicted the Georgia anti-sodomy law at the center of the case would be overturned.

Many well-reasoned opinions followed the decision making a good case why it was wrongly decided. And in 2003, the Court itself came to realize the Bowers case was wrongly decided.

[BenR2]

So, upholding the equal protection clause is, to your mind, endorsing the gay agenda? Kudos for at least putting your bias right out on the table.

But notwithstanding your mendacity, your conclusion is also wrong.

////////////
I take it logic is not your strong point, right?

In sentence A, you compliment me for "putting my bias right out on the table," and in sentence B, you speak of my mendacity.

So which is it? I put my views out on the table? Or, I am lying?

And, if you are accusing me of lying: What is the lie I told?

[BenR2]

But notwithstanding your mendacity, your conclusion is also wrong. Bowers v. Harwick was the last sodomy case to come before the Supreme Court in 1986 (17 years ago, i.e. more than ten years ago). Far from being "unthinkable", the general legal consensus at the time predicted the Georgia anti-sodomy law at the center of the case would be overturned.

Many well-reasoned opinions followed the decision making a good case why it was wrongly decided. And in 2003, the Court itself came to realize the Bowers case was wrongly decided.

/////////////////
Okay. I get it: You think homosexuality is fine and dandy!

You are a good proponent of the radical gay agenda. (Sorry: Not buying.)

[auggy]

"Impeach her!"

She damn well needs to be.

And to think she is from the ,"old school". She would be one of the last Supreme Court Judges, I would expect with ideas like she has.

I am beginning to think, that maybe our judges should also be elected, let's say every 10 years, instead of appointed by the President.

They don't need to serve a lifetime, and if, elected, the only way the Demons could get one of their judges in, would be to commit fraud at the polls, which we know they would never do that.

[tdadams]

I point out that you don't have your facts straight and you slander me. And you think this makes you a persuasive debater? Sorry, not so.

Grow up some and then try again. Calling me names and making obviously false accusations doesn't suddenly make you correct. It just shows how petty and immature you are, in addition to being factually wrong.

[tdadams]

I take it logic is not your strong point, right? ...In sentence A, you compliment me for "putting my bias right out on the table," and in sentence B, you speak of my mendacity.

Well, ironicallly, it seems logic isn't your stong point.

Rather than "bias" and "mendacity" being mutually exclusive, they are most often seen in conjunction.

I'm really starting to wonder... how old are you? Does your mom know you're on the computer?

[ATOMIC_PUNK]