[tdadams]

Some of you sound as if you think by simply looking, for mere reference, at what a court in Europe has done, O'Connor is subjugating the U.S. Supreme Court to the precedents of the European courts. I sincerely hope you know better.

Listening to the views of others and gaining a perspective on both sides of an argument is what a good judge should do. Interested parties of all stripes, from the John Birchers to the ACLU, can file an amicus brief with the court. No one seems to have a problem with that.

I think there are a lot of people here reading WAY too much into this. The Supreme Court is well within its right to take into consideration any perspectives and opinions it might deem appropriate. In fact, it's quite prudent of them to do so.

[stop_fascism]

How does world opinion effect the meaning of the constitution?

Good judges at the Supreme Court level should apply the constitution. Period.

I have a huge problem with amicus briefs by the ACLU. They have become legal brownshirts. They take a ridiculous opinion, then find a liberal judge to support it. Voila, legislation from the bench. Mix in a Supreme court that believes our laws should be based on European opinion, and you have a government based on liberal fads.

Now that with have the "right to buggery" is the right to bugger children far behind? (no pun intended).