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

Skip to comments.

Justice O’Connor’s Remarks Raise Concerns
Concerned Women for America ^ | 11/8/2004 | Anne F. Downey, Esq.

Posted on 11/08/2004 12:48:55 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan

A disturbing trend toward reliance on international law can be seen in the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and recent remarks by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor fuel concerns about this trend.

Justice O’Connor, speaking on October 27 at a dedication ceremony for an international law center at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., hailed this development.

“International law has emerged in ways that affect all courts, here and abroad,” she said. “The reason is globalization. Its importance should not be underestimated.”

She applauded the increased role, saying: “International law, which is the expression of agreement on some basic principles of relations between nations, will be a factor or a force in gaining a greater consensus among all nations. ... It can be and it is a help in our search for a more peaceful world.”

Notions of “greater consensus among nations” and a “more peaceful world” sound so positive. But what exactly will the consensus be?

Justice O’Connor also said: “Acting in accord with international norms may increase the chances for development of broader alliances or at least silent support from other nations.”

The problem is: Who will decide the “norms” we will all be required to follow in this big happy global family? Didn’t our nation fight a Revolutionary War so that we could enjoy freedom from European government?

Taking the argument one step further, Justice O’Connor said: “Because of the scope of the problems we face, understanding international law is no longer just a legal specialty; it is becoming a duty.”

These comments come in the wake of several key U.S. Supreme Court decisions that show an increasing deference to international law.

In the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case, the Court told the state of Texas it could not enforce a criminal statute enacted by its Legislature. The will of the people of Texas, as expressed through the elected representatives, was made null and void by a court that relied in part on guidance from the European Council for Human Rights and the United Nations.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy derided an earlier Court opinion by Chief Justice Warren Burger with its “sweeping references to the history of Western civilization and our Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards.” Instead, Kennedy looked to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, finding this “[o]f even more importance.”

Something similar happened in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her concurring opinion in which Justice Stephen Breyer joined, approved the Court’s decision on grounds that it “accords with the international understanding of the office of affirmative action.” She cited, among other international legal sources, the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a treaty which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify and which CWA strongly opposes.

Justice Ginsburg, in a speech last year to a liberal legal group called the American Constitution Society, stated that our “Lone Ranger mentality is beginning to change,” as judges “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.”

When the U.S. Supreme Court prefers the guidance of unelected, foreign groups over American democratic processes, “we the people” become “we the subjects of a globalized viewpoint.” This viewpoint is not likely to be based on the Scriptures.

Surely, this trend would not amuse the Founding Fathers. Since when do the U.S. Constitution and laws take on a lesser role?

One reflects back to July 4, 2003, when Justice O’Connor received the Liberty Medal at a ceremony to open Philadelphia’s new museum honoring the U.S. Constitution. There, during the unveiling of a tableau of the signing of the Constitution, a stage frame fell and narrowly missed the Justice, while striking Sen. Arlen Specter in the arm.

We must pray that God will grant mercy and Godly wisdom to all the members of the judiciary and our elected officials.

We must watch the disturbing trend toward reliance upon international law. Concerned Women for America (CWA) will continue to shine the spotlight on the workings of the judiciary, so that “we the people” can cry out for our voices to be heard.

Anne Downey is a Christian attorney who practices law with her husband in New York. She is a member of the Christian Legal Society, an Alliance Defense Fund “ally,” and is volunteering her services to CWA’s Legal Studies Department.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: judicialactivism; supremecourt; transjudicialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last
Justice O'Connor is in dire need of replacement!

Fox News 'Judge' exposes 'Constitutional Chaos'

1 posted on 11/08/2004 12:48:56 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Senile.


2 posted on 11/08/2004 12:49:26 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Another piece of evidence that a 'living constitution' is in the works by the liberal left.


3 posted on 11/08/2004 12:51:13 PM PST by blakep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
What happens when you spend too much time at too many too expensive cocktail parties in DC.

On the bright side, she is known to want to retire.

4 posted on 11/08/2004 12:51:59 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Maybe we should cut and paste the impeachment laws from the scottish constitution.


5 posted on 11/08/2004 12:52:28 PM PST by diabolicNYC (Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Thankfully, Bush will get to replace her and Ginsberg. It would be great if Kennedy and souter wanted to retire.


6 posted on 11/08/2004 12:52:41 PM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Why would any American justice care about information from international courts when their laws do not apply here?

The only rule of law this senile broad needs to worry about is the US Constitution and US law. Was she this bad when Reagan appointed her to the court? Or has old age crept in and attacked her brain?


7 posted on 11/08/2004 12:52:45 PM PST by MissouriConservative (We will always remember, always be proud, always be prepared, so we may always be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I don't think she's senile. She's just "grown."


8 posted on 11/08/2004 12:53:23 PM PST by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

What is the process for impeachment?


9 posted on 11/08/2004 12:53:32 PM PST by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blakep

Simply stated, it's an abuse of judicial power.


10 posted on 11/08/2004 12:53:32 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Please, Dubya, sir, Mr. President, no more women on the Supreme Court -- unless it's Ann Coulter or someone like that!
11 posted on 11/08/2004 12:53:37 PM PST by LibWhacker (FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

This crazy SCOTUS member is advocating one-world govt. She's either senile or desperately needs hormone injections. Down with O'Connor!


12 posted on 11/08/2004 12:53:44 PM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Justice O'Connor is in dire need of replacement! - Agreed!
13 posted on 11/08/2004 12:54:04 PM PST by Free_at_last_-2001 (is clinton in jail yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Well considering that ther role of the SCOTUS has absolutely nothing to do with "International Law" on any level and everything to do with the constitution of the United States any assertions in that regard are purely specualtions of a wandering mind


14 posted on 11/08/2004 12:54:35 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

I hope that retirement is in the cards for her reaaalll soon, she can always move over to France I hear they have a very international flair and appeal there.


15 posted on 11/08/2004 12:55:01 PM PST by arly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

priscilla owen would be nice


16 posted on 11/08/2004 12:56:01 PM PST by sassbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
“International law has emerged in ways that affect all courts, here and abroad,” she said.

Justice O'Connor should be forced to step down based on obvious senility. Our highest law is the Constitution of the United States of America, not the U.N. charter.

17 posted on 11/08/2004 12:56:06 PM PST by Prime Choice (Hey-hey! Ho-ho! Arlen Specter's gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Not only O'Connor, but Ginsburg as well.

Ginsburg: Int'l Law Shaped Court Rulings Associated Press

These leftist judges, who ignore the Constitution when they aren't trying to re-write it, are the greatest threat this country has ever faced.

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte [sic] for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

- Abraham Lincoln January 27, 1838
- Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
18 posted on 11/08/2004 12:58:14 PM PST by holymoly ("Would of" is not the contraction for "would have". The contraction of "would have" is "would've".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

"Global Test"


19 posted on 11/08/2004 12:59:25 PM PST by soccer_linux_mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Yep, Globalism is figment of our imagination. Go back to sleep.

I wish I had a penny for every time someone had said this to me over the years.


20 posted on 11/08/2004 12:59:30 PM PST by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

For the sake of the country, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court...I hope Justice O'Connor retires. She should be impeached.


21 posted on 11/08/2004 1:01:52 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sassbox

Don't know much about her . . . But I just did a Google search and all the howling and gnashing of teeth by the MSM over her makes her sound like a GREAT candidate! :-)


22 posted on 11/08/2004 1:02:02 PM PST by LibWhacker (FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: diabolicNYC

Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear: "In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."


23 posted on 11/08/2004 1:03:14 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
This should sit well with likely new Judic. chairman, Arlen "Scottish Law" Specter.

Conservatives in the Senate need to ask this one question of all future court nominess: "To what extent should international law or the laws of other nations have upon the laws of this nation?"

24 posted on 11/08/2004 1:03:29 PM PST by My2Cents (The Democrat Party is pining for the fjords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!

"Grown" more senile.


25 posted on 11/08/2004 1:05:55 PM PST by My2Cents (The Democrat Party is pining for the fjords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

International law should have no bearing within our borders or concerns. If agreement is to be found with other nations that is a treaty matter and given to the Senate to address, not the Supreme Court.


26 posted on 11/08/2004 1:07:24 PM PST by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

It would be the same as the Clinton Impeachment...first the House would vote on impeachment...if a justice was impeached...like Clinton was...then it goes to the Senate where he (or she) would be tried...then hopefully the Senate votes to remove him or her.


27 posted on 11/08/2004 1:07:25 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

She is leaning more and more left. Scary.


28 posted on 11/08/2004 1:09:01 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

The problem is that the Supreme Court is relying on International Law and not the U.S. Constitution...as cited in examples above such as the Supreme Court striking down a Texas law on sodomy.


29 posted on 11/08/2004 1:09:24 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
She has needed replacing for some time. We should thank her for one thing, though -- she has wanted to retire for some time, and she held off during the Clinton administration, and again held off while the Senate was in turmoil.

W may appoint as many as 4 justices this term, and that is why we need to work this issue hard with our Senators and with the President.

30 posted on 11/08/2004 1:09:29 PM PST by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

I support the impeachment of Justice O'Connor.


31 posted on 11/08/2004 1:10:14 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Add the Arizona sun to an already addled senescent brain and you have..... Sandra Day O'Connor!!!

Carrying on in the tradition of Justices Douglas and Warren.


32 posted on 11/08/2004 1:10:21 PM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I think we need to fully appreciate how truly SCARY her thinking is. If this philosophy takes hold in our courts we can say goodbye to our sovereignty.

We need to put a stop to this NOW!!!!!

33 posted on 11/08/2004 1:13:07 PM PST by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

She needs to be impeached.


34 posted on 11/08/2004 1:16:26 PM PST by thoughtomator (The Era of Old Media is over! Long live the Pajamasphere!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
I think these judges need to be bombarded with copies of the US Constitution (You know, the document they should be going by, not some other country's) and demand for them to READ IT.
35 posted on 11/08/2004 1:20:41 PM PST by Houmatt (I am deeply saddened Daschle lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

God might retire her naturally !


36 posted on 11/08/2004 1:23:53 PM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt

They need to be forced to read the writings of the founding fathers as well.


37 posted on 11/08/2004 1:26:25 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

You fail to note her definition of "international" law is just that body of law AGREED upon which are shared by nations. It is NOT something created in France and forced down the throats of the US.


38 posted on 11/08/2004 1:26:46 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I just heard Sean Hannity say that he will have on .Senator Spector today. I don't know what time. Those of you in the East may have already heard him.

He's also going to have on John O'Neill of the SBVTS>


39 posted on 11/08/2004 1:27:16 PM PST by Txsleuth (Proud to be a Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
If they start looking at "International Law" for deciding 'opinions'; what would that mean for any potential 2nd Amendment case, or the death penalty?

I recall an opinion last year(I think) where Justice Kennedy mentioned "International Law" in some majority opinion. I nearly fell out of my chair, but didn't think about it further. The Federal courts should look at nothing but the US CONSTITUTION, if they go off to "International Law" they are blurring the lines between courts and foreign policy. This would be tragic.

40 posted on 11/08/2004 1:27:46 PM PST by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I think you're being naive on that point.


41 posted on 11/08/2004 1:28:16 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
good gawd! What happened to O'Connor!

What is this all pervasive trend to "One World" rule - The "world" can't take care of itself. It's a total mess - or yeah, we want the French and Germans weighing in our court cases...this is really getting scary

We need Thomas for our next Chief Justice - and pray "W: gets to put in at min 3 more! People that recognize OUR CONSTITUTION is our law...our country is sovereign

42 posted on 11/08/2004 1:29:18 PM PST by maine-iac7 ( Pray without doubt..."Ask and you SHALL receive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
“International law, which is the expression of agreement on some basic principles of relations between nations, will be a factor or a force in gaining a greater consensus among all nations. ... It can be and it is a help in our search for a more peaceful world.”

Spoken like a member of the USSR's politburo.

Just what America needs: more socialist/commies in the soopreme kort.

43 posted on 11/08/2004 1:30:18 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

She's a big one-world government proponent and you don't want to admit it. She, and others on the bench, are dangerous to America.


44 posted on 11/08/2004 1:32:05 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

No it is consistent with what has been said in the past by O'Connor. No remarks have suggested applying international law contrary to the constitution. At worst she suggested earlier that where there is silence in the Constitution it would be reasonable to "consider" iL. This is normal jurisprudence with a long tradition behind it. Our early laws were made with English law in mind and Blackstone and Coke were the first authorities consulted on any legal question.

In addition we have from our beginning taken Maritime Law (which is a form of international law) as part of our code.

These fears are overblown and only generated by taking things out of context. They aren't terribly realistic. There are not a lot of things different between our laws and international law. Most differences are fairly minor.

Another point is that "international" law means European law since the Islamic nations and LDCs are never included.


45 posted on 11/08/2004 1:41:46 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman

No she is not see #44. I have no reason to defend her particularly if unwarranted.


46 posted on 11/08/2004 1:42:44 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman

45 not 44


47 posted on 11/08/2004 1:43:11 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Okay, you asked for it. Justice O’Connor is advocating a consensus among nations and she’s saying that international law is just that, and that my friend is all the ammunition I need because the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret that United States Constitution and it isn’t supposed to rely upon any sort of rulings by foreign court or international law. Consensus has been a preferred agent of change for the left. It’s like capital punishment. The ACLU and others on the loony left always make it a point to say we’re the last industrialized nation that still has capital punishment. That’s why the Europeans have threatened to economically sanction the state of Texas. Consensus is about corralling us in the herd.


48 posted on 11/08/2004 1:49:36 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Keep it Up! Conservative Coulter Fan: I agree with you totally. I saw that quote by Ginsberg a while back and it put a knot in my stomach.

Now, with this Specter thing, I think WE THE PEOPLE need to turn these justices around and point them back to America soil and law.


49 posted on 11/08/2004 1:55:13 PM PST by Txsleuth (Proud to be a Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

/agree 100%


50 posted on 11/08/2004 1:55:15 PM PST by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 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