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

Skip to comments.

PASSING A GLOBAL TEST
NROTC ^ | Andrew Stuttaford

Posted on 10/15/2004 2:54:31 PM PDT by swilhelm73

Today the Supreme Court will be looking at whether the death penalty for juveniles (in effect, 16 and 17 year olds) is constitutional. For what it’s worth, I think that such a punishment is both constitutional and wrong. I also think that this is something for Americans – and Americans alone - to decide. A number of foreign countries appear not entirely to agree. According to the New York Sun the governments of 48 countries have submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in support of the argument that the death penalty under these circumstances is unconstitutional. These countries are entitled to their opinion. They are not – or should not – be entitled to intervene in telling the US how to interpret its constitution. The Supreme Court should throw out their brief with prejudice, insult and all manner of lofty disdain, and, until these 48 countries learn to mind their own business, the US should, as a matter of course, start intervening in their legal proceedings.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: deathpenalty; juveniles; ropervsimmons; scotus; transjudicialism

1 posted on 10/15/2004 2:54:31 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

48 countries would not have gone to the trouble of filing briefs with our highest court unless they were assured that our Judiciary would be receptive to their ideas.

The justices on the Supreme Court have been incrementally changing our constitution for years, and much of their opinions have been in line with European thinking. It's no secret that some SC justices have been in Europe discussing legal procedures with an eye to including some of it into their opinions.

It should come as no surprise then that foreign justices would take time to "suggest" a European course of action in a question of constitutional law that should be totally American.


2 posted on 10/15/2004 3:21:04 PM PDT by Noachian (A Democrat, by definition, is a Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
They were invited to butt in to our business by none other than Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I suspect," O'Connor said, according to the Atlanta daily, "that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

3 posted on 10/15/2004 3:27:44 PM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

Is there a lawyer in the house, so to speak?

How can a foreign power be allowed to submit an amicus brief, assuming that they are "participating" via such filings?

They are not party to the action, are they? ? ?


4 posted on 10/15/2004 3:44:00 PM PDT by GladesGuru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
For what it’s worth, I think that such a punishment is both constitutional and wrong.

At least he's batting .500. And, he's right about us rejecting foreign interference or examples.

5 posted on 10/15/2004 3:46:19 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
I'm a bit confused. The same Constitution that legitimates the Supreme Court declares itself the Supreme Law of the land. I have read it several times, and I must have missed the clause subjecting the interpretation of the Constitution to the whims of the Courts of Foreign Potentates. That clause of course brings us to ask, "Which foreign potentates?" Shall we accept Talibanic justiprudence? How about a Nigerian Sharia court? Why not the decrees of Turkmenbashi? Do we follow the courts of Belarus? Of Paraguay? What if they should disagree? What if they should contravene American values? What ever happened to independence? Do we not value our national heritage anymore?
6 posted on 10/15/2004 3:51:43 PM PDT by dufekin (President Kerry would have our enemies partying like it's 1969, when Kerry first committed treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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