Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

Eagle Forum ^ | March 16, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[muawiyah]

What you are missing is the difference between and among "the law", "judicial practice", and "legal principles".

You will notice that although our Founders looked to Roman Law (among others), laws passed by the Roman Senate and enforced by the Tribunes and Emperors ARE NOT law in the United States.

Up until recently we depended on Congress and the various state legislators to inform us of the state of American law.

Now, arch traitors like Justice Kennedy want us to bow down to foreign potentates and satraps.

It is time to remove the traitors and return to our own ancient traditions, and laws, and have our Congress and the legislatures debate and pass laws for our use.

[jwalsh07]

No, because, once again, I actually read the decision.

I've read the decision and the dissents several times and because I have I know just how much balogna you are trying to pass off as roast beef.

And what everyone is ignoring the fact that in their ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that executing Simmons was cruel and unusual.

And what you're ignoring, or purposely withholding, is the fact that the Missouri court based it's holding on Atkins, you guessed it, another law made by SCOTUS while the Simmons case was being litigated.

How can the Supreme Court be accused of making laws when it is upholding a lower court ruling?

Not only is the SCOTUS making law, so did the Missouri Supreme Court. Missori legislatore, duly elected by the people of Missouri, had laws on their books. The Missori judges, using SCOTUS' erroneous reasoning in Atkins, found a way to negate those laws and then the same SCOTUS upheld the Missouri courts relaince on, you guessed it, SCOTUS.

Most states in this country (60%)have already determined that offenders under 18 should not be executed.

I'm pretty good with numbers so I can make them dance every bit as good as you. 37 states have the death penalty, that would be the sample we are working with. Of those, 18 states have the legislating against the death penalty for people under 18. But that means 19, a majority, do not have laws prohibitng same. IOW's, SCOTUS' claim that there is a consensus is a damn lie.

AS for the rest of your "analysis", states make all the laws you cited. That is the power assigned to them by the Constitution, as is who getss the death penalty.

[visualops]

Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

IMO, yes. It clearly violates their oath to uphold OUR Constitution and it's principles in favor of foreign principles.

BTTT

[jwalsh07]

I'm pretty good with numbers

But admittedly, a terrible typist.

[fr_freak]

"...but that they inserted their own personal bias into the interpretation."

Every judge does that in every decision. As human beings, it's impossible not to.

I could not disagree with you more. The very purpose of a judge is to remain an impartial referee. You may argue that it is humanly impossible to purge all biases from yourself as you review law and procedure, but interpreting a law or procedure contrary to how it is written in order to suit your own agenda is an entirely different thing. For instance, if I were a state judge in a state where marijuana was illegal, regardless of my opinion that marijuana should be legal, I could not honestly set a dealer free because I have decided that marijuana shouldn't be illegal. If I do, I am no longer clarifying law, or even interpreting it; I am now dictating what the law is and ignoring the actual written law. That is the essence of what the justices are doing, with this case and others.

[BikerNYC]

It is impossible for a person to determine whether or not a punishment is "cruel and unusual" without that person relying on his "personal bias."

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

great post. Yes, they should be impeached and "conservative" Republicans who can't see the judiciary is out of control are part of the problem.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Missori judges, using SCOTUS' erroneous reasoning in Atkins, found a way to negate those laws and then the same SCOTUS upheld the Missouri courts relaince on, you guessed it, SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court decision was erroneous because you said it was. Well, glad we got that straightened out. </sarcasm>

[jwalsh07]

The Supreme Court decision was erroneous because you said it was. Well, glad we got that straightened out.

Not just me but the three conservatives on the court and the one moderate. The lefties and the libertarian trending toward insanity all voted with you.

And BTW, sarcasm isn't an argument. I take it you've waived the white flag.

[jwalsh07]

The Constitutional threads die a quick death these days. Maybe even quicker than SS. :-}

[Torie]

On some of these judicial decision I can't really type up a post pointing out the competing arguments, which I often do on many issues. That is because they are just a raw abuse of judicial power, which as Scalia noted, will not only politicize as it has judicial nominations to the breaking point, but in time render the Constitution, not a sacred document respected by all protecting fundamental rights and due process, but about as useful as swiss cheese is as an impermeable barrier to moisture.

It irritates me when I am provoked to sound like a red meat right wing antagonist. But, well, facts are facts. One must call them as one sees them.

[jwalsh07]

You're the man! Honest as the day is long.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

That makes sense, I guess. I'll take your word for it. Perhapsd I was thinking of the "circuit" judges - I could swear that was William, but perhaps it was there with the Celts, I don't know.

I have a rule in my practice against representing ancient Celts, so how was I to know?

[Bluegrass Federalist]

I read it. Did you read Scalia's dissent?

[Non-Sequitur]

I read it. Did you read Scalia's dissent?

Yes, as well as O'Connor's.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

No, because, once again, I actually read the decision. And what everyone is ignoring the fact that in their ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that executing Simmons was cruel and unusual. How can the Supreme Court be accused of making laws when it is upholding a lower court ruling? Most states in this country (60%)have already determined that offenders under 18 should not be executed. We hold those under 18 to a different standard from adults. They cannot vote, drink, serve on juries, enlist in the miltiary without parental approval, or get married in most states without approval. Yet Missouri used the same set of standards that they use to sentence adults to death to sentence those under 18. The court ruled that such a double standard did fall under the category of cruel and unusual. The court acknowledged that there were sure to be some criminals under 18 aware enough to warrant the death penalty, but the laws would have to be crafted to do a better job of identifying those criminals were the death penalty is truly justified. Current laws don't do that. All of which you would know had you or Ms. Schlafly read the decision.

You should read Scalia's dissent. First, the majority of states with the death penalty DO allow execution of minors. This is highly relevant to the legal standard (bogus though it is) in question, that of "evolving standards od decency" which is examined in reference to a "national consensus". How is a minority opinion equated to a national consensus? As for how it is that the Court is making law, I won't presume that I could articulate it better than Scalia. His dissent is marvelous.

[NCC-1701]

Doesn't the justices to UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Contitution of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? sorry for screaming, that was for emphasis.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

When people post me, I like internet shouting [perhaps not nonstop caps lock], especially when it's the Great Schlafly discussing impeachment of judges. Glad to see it. Passion and brains. Powerful combination.