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.
What we need is a Constitutional Amendment that allows the American people to VOTE for the Supreme Court Justices, and puts a term limit on them as well. As it presently stands SCOTUS has usurped their authority by acting outside their role as interpreters of the Constitution.
Clarence, si;
Ruth, sort of;
Sandra, NO!
UN out of US, especially SCOTUS!
Oh, and for good measure, posthumously IMPEACH EARL WARREN!
(It might nullify several of his rulings.)
I have to stand by you, the ones that seem to think this is no big deal, are naive.
I heard on Laura Ingraham show one day that the ex-foreign minister of France, de Villeneuve was on the Charlie Rose show and spent a considerable time talking about the future. HIS future was of ONE WORLD ORDER, international law, courts, taxes, etc., that scared me and he isn't an American Supreme Court judge.
When our Supremes start echoing those kind of "code words", I think it is time to put on the brakes and make a committment to keep the USA as sovereign as it was meant to be in 1787.
Excellent now consider that it specifically mentions the only form of International law of that era as being under the purview of the Court. But our Founders did not unreasonably fear the "consideration" of international law but, in fact, knew that much of it was incorporated within our laws already.
O'Connor has NEVER suggested that iL overrule constitutional law where there is a conflict.
The last time I checked, our interaction with other countries is supposed to be through treaties, not through judicial activism.
Judges are not supposed to decide to follow international conventions. Treaties are the bailwick of the senate.
Somebody really needs to slap down these black-robed imperialists!
Mark
That is another good point --- if the Supremes need information or "guidance" that isn't already in the Constitution, then they need to look to our legislators to write the law-----Not to international law.
The Progressives, within the Democrat party would probably be thrilled with this sort of SCOTUS activism, and I'm sure would encourage it, rather that go thru legislature because they are in the minority. See: Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Justice O'Connor nêds impeachment for that. Her job is to interpret the Constitution and rule according to the Constitution. That includes treaties but not any international "law" not found in treaties to which the US is a duly ratified party.
I would prefer we got rid of Kennedy or Ginsburg first, but O'Traitor needs to go, too.
Someday (long after I'm dead, I hope) when the Muslims have taken over all of Europe, international law will require that women wear burquas and be stoned to death if they are the victim of rape or incest. Should this country adhere to that law? I know this sounds ridiculous, but sometimes you have to illustrate absurdity with absurdity.
What you are referring to might not even have to be "international" to become a major problem. I know that some of the European countries (France) are having trouble with their Muslim
citizens when "sharia" law is in direct conflict with their country's law.
I know the dems subsribe to much more of a multicultural form of treatment for immigrants. They are for total amnesty for Mexican illegals already here.
I think with a multicultural system of rules, you become open to different ethnic communities wanting to live by their own "law" and ignore ours if it doesn't conform.
Look at what is happening in our schools. No more Christmas concerts, decorations, parties, etc. The slippery slope that women's rights people worry about, pertains to multiculturalism in law, also.
Both her and Ginzberg. You do solemnly swear. And they said, yes, I do solemnly swear. To uphold the Constitution of the United States. And they say, well . . it depends. What does international law have to say about the matter? A shame they were never so honest to say that on the podium when they were sworn in. Would have been funny. Would have been funny to see them escorted right off.
Oh no! NOT THAT LIAR! Not that creepy lying liar! /donnell Mode
Internationalists O'Connor and Kennedy have null and voided their respective candidacies as Chief Justice...Scalia -- though emminently qualified -- is considered "too conservative."
...Hence, let me be the first to congratulate Chief Justice Clarence Thomas on his appointment.
Justice O'Conner should be impeached.
Globalization is not a good word. It is especially bad with elected officals and jurists.
It needs to be added to a "code word" list like progressive, centrist(hillary) etc.
Judge Bork said on Hannity's show that Specter was only one of two Senators to vote to have our millitary tried by the international court.
Know anything more about this?
My understanding is that US Supreme Court decisions are supposed to be based on what our US Constitution actually says, and the court is given the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution in making decisions. "International Law" should not have any bearing or influence on any decision of SCOTUS. Period. End of argument!
The Constitution is not a "living document" to be revised by the whim of SCOTUS or any other court. There is a constitutional process for revisions, period! End of argument!
Now let us use the influence of this forum to get individuals appointed to SCOTUS who understand and accept this!
ping
I agree with your points, however, I have a slight correction. Japan also has the death penalty, and uses it on occasion. Asahara (of the sarin gas Tokyo subway fame)was recently sentenced to death.
Lawrence would have found himself under a tumbling brick wall for sure.
Which proves that O'Connor's claim to see value in looking at evolving international standards is bogus. She really didn't look at "international standards". Rather, she went no further than to find something that agreed with her personal beliefs.
That's not terribly Constitutional, nor is it justifiable. It is, in fact, a very good reason to impeach the woman!
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.