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

Skip to comments.

Rule of (International) Law: Can foreign courts tell American ones how to do their job?
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | February 26, 2005 | Editorial

Posted on 02/25/2005 9:09:57 PM PST by quidnunc

One of the more dangerous fads in Supreme Court jurisprudence of late is something called "international law," in which American laws are measured not just against the Constitution but against the laws of foreign countries. The purpose is to put the U.S. law in what supporters delicately call a "global context." What they really mean is that they can't persuade enough Americans of their views to change U.S. law so they want to persuade judges to do it for them.

Among the most ardent supporters of this view are opponents (here and abroad) of the death penalty, who argue that capital punishment violates international norms. In the juvenile death-penalty case it heard last fall, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of permitting friend-of-the-court briefs from 48 foreign governments and such renowned jurists as Mikhail Gorbachev and the Dalai Lama. (Naturally, they all opposed it.)

Which brings us to Medellin v. Dretke, a death penalty-related case that the Supreme Court will hear next month and which has the potential to catapult the concept of international law to a new level of acceptability in American courts. At issue is whether an order issued by the International Court of Justice at The Hague must be enforced by a court in Texas. That is, the "supreme" court of the United States would reside in the Netherlands, not the District of Columbia.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: globalism; internationallaw; scotus; transjudicialism

1 posted on 02/25/2005 9:09:58 PM PST by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: quidnunc
I guess my vote on that is "HELL NO!"

The best way I've heard it put was by Ann Coulter, quoting the John Birch Society: "Liberals care more about global governance than about the United States," from her book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).

Pretty much says it all about liberals, from Kennedy on down to the likes of Leahy and Biden.

3 posted on 02/25/2005 9:18:50 PM PST by Marauder (I drink to make other people more interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marauder

Only if they invade and set up a government for us.


4 posted on 02/25/2005 9:20:10 PM PST by Gondring (They can have my Bill of Rights when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Anybody can click on my screen name to access the Opinion Journal article.


5 posted on 02/25/2005 9:21:34 PM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Spec.4 Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Is there any mechanism in the constitution for a remedy of a corrupt SCOTUS? Or actually they have an unlimited power?


6 posted on 02/25/2005 9:22:10 PM PST by paudio (Four More Years..... Let's Use Them Wisely...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Our Supremes have been talking about internationalization of our Constitution for years, and not one word is heard from our Congress about stopping this travesty.

Our Congress has repeatedly let the courts legislate from the bench, and it is only a matter of time before the courts "interpret" the Constitution as irrelevant in this brave new world of European Socialist law.
7 posted on 02/25/2005 9:28:41 PM PST by Noachian (We're all one judge away from tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback
Only if we let them.

soooooo right.

will we tolerate legal endorsement of gay unions? will we let them murder Terry Schiavo by starvation? Will we turn our backs and let Roe v. Wade be the law of the land?

Will we sit around and piss and moan and let it happen?

I think I'm beginning to understand those dreams where nobody hears you screaming...and where you're running but getting nowhere...

8 posted on 02/25/2005 9:31:50 PM PST by the invisib1e hand ("remember, from ashes you came, to ashes you will return.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Foreign entities have no concept of OUR Constitution. Perhaps if they were to study the history behind our great Republic, they could come to understand the background and therefore, the true meaning of FREEDOM. But, alas, they will not for they know the consequences thereof!


9 posted on 02/25/2005 9:38:43 PM PST by lawdude (Leftists see what they believe. Conservatives believe what they see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
They can tell the US courts anything they please. And the US courts can ignore them if they please. And if they don't, you and I can ignore said US courts, as not "US".
10 posted on 02/25/2005 9:44:38 PM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Oh give it time and there won't be an America !


11 posted on 02/25/2005 9:46:00 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marauder

I guess my vote on that is "HELL NO!"

My immediate reaction to the title alone. I believe SCJ Breyer, no that's the ice cream, is it Beyer, feels this is fine. I watched him on C-Span with SCJ Scalia, who was fabulous, and thought he was a real jerk.


12 posted on 02/25/2005 9:49:34 PM PST by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paudio
Is there any mechanism in the constitution for a remedy of a corrupt SCOTUS? Or actually they have an unlimited power?

They gave themselves unlimited power and will never let it go. Even Renquist doesn't want to let it go.

13 posted on 02/25/2005 10:03:52 PM PST by GeronL (Bush on the PRESS "They just float sewer out there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback

Too late.


14 posted on 02/25/2005 10:16:51 PM PST by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: quidnunc

Can foreign courts tell American ones how to do their job?

Sure they can say whatever thay want. And I can say whatever I what in return, and right now I have two (count em 2) words for them. Care to guess what they are?


16 posted on 02/25/2005 10:18:41 PM PST by Valin (DARE to be average!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Congress is not doing it's job regarding the run away judicial branch because some are too scared, and some are for sale, and some are for it.


17 posted on 02/25/2005 10:21:07 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

The idea of, say, a Chinese or Zimbabwean court making decisions that affect us, or even contributing to those decisions, is just a little disturbing.


18 posted on 02/26/2005 12:24:01 AM PST by lastlostfight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Did we sign a treaty granting the ICJ jurisdiction in such matters? If we did then we might have to abide by their rules -- which is why we should be very careful of which treaties we sign.


19 posted on 02/26/2005 12:42:52 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
By the way, how are they doing with the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes? After all that's the reason we went to war there. If he's not found guilty of any war crimes then Clinton lied and people died. And where's that timetable for withdrawal from Bosnia? Weren't we promised that the troops would be out before June 30th, 1998? How's that going? Didn't Gen Shalikashvili testify before Congress that the deployment to Bosnia would not be more than 12 months? And that was in 1995!
20 posted on 02/26/2005 12:54:30 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

How do you say this in Latin?

Go take a flying f* at a rolling donut?


21 posted on 02/26/2005 4:04:10 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcuddeback

Liberal judges are always citing European case law. Our own Supreme Court justices have done it.


22 posted on 02/26/2005 7:17:24 AM PST by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9

Liberals cite only foreign LIBERAL law, a point made by Justice Scalia in his debate with Breyer. The Liberals adore the UN, or foreign law, not because either has any authority, but only to the extent it reinforces their own left wing political views. For example, in a death penalty case, the Liberal justices would never mention the law of foreign countries that allow for the death penalty, but only those countries, dubbed "enlightened", whose laws agree with them.


23 posted on 02/26/2005 7:44:25 AM PST by CivilWarguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarguy

So they can go overseas to cite precedence in their attempt to foist their odious, leftist agenda upon the American people.


24 posted on 02/26/2005 9:13:57 AM PST by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9

The Liberal justices come up with a subtle twist on this: they don't much cite foreign law as legal precedent--not yet, at least. Rather, what they do is state that the meaning of, for example, "cruel and unusual punishment" in the US Constitution can be ascertained by what the "enlightened" world considers "cruel and unusual", which then allows them to bring all sorts of "enlightened", Leftwing French laws in. Justice Breyer, in his debate with Justic Scalia, made this twist--presumably because even they don't yet dare go by French, rather than American, law. How a cherrypicked 2005 foreign definition of "cruel and unusual" is of relevance to an American Constitution written in 1789 is something that Justice Scalia, for one, exposed as absurdity.


25 posted on 02/27/2005 9:21:05 AM PST by CivilWarguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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