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.
I think you're being naive on that point.
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
Spoken like a member of the USSR's politburo.
Just what America needs: more socialist/commies in the soopreme kort.
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.
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.
No she is not see #44. I have no reason to defend her particularly if unwarranted.
45 not 44
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.
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.
/agree 100%
Well, I never thought the O'Kennedy segment of the Court were textualists. They seem to be studying Gallup and realclearpolitics.com in deciding any number of cases. I do know that within the past few years, the Court Fellowship Commission (made up of judges and partners from big D.C. firms) has increasingly granted fellowships to international lawyers. Maybe that's the source of the influence.
I would prefer she sticks with the constitution
O'Connor has never suggested that the Court "rely" on iL merely that it will "consider" it. I "consider" voting for a RAT every time I enter the polls but never do because I consider what he stands for. I can "consider" what Russian law says without it prejudicing me in any way against the US Constitution.
These are groundless fears now and were six months ago when a similiar discussion took place. Of course, you ignored what I pointed out wrt our own past.
Thank you...I need all the help and support I can get because we all can agree that we face a hostile liberal media and that couldn't be better summed up than by the N.Y. Times Editorial Page.
Sure is.
The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution of the United States...not foreign rulings...not international law. She has made it a duty and I hope she chokes on those very words.
You need to read Article III, Section 2 to understand what the Court's charged with. It is not what you think.
Key words: international law, globalization, more peaceful world, and "international law is no longer a legal specialty, it is becoming a duty."
But Justice O'Connor, WE LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, WE LOSE EVERYTHING!
Precisely! That’s a good summation.
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.