Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

Eagle Forum ^ | March 16, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Dead Corpse]

Can a supreme court ruling be overturned as unconstitional because it violates our constitution? If so, is there a higher power above the supreme court that could/would issue such a ruling?

We the People. We gave them that power. We can take it away. Impeach them. Petition the new Court to re-hear the case.

[Malacoda]

Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

I dunno.

Let's ask ol' "Not Proven/Scottish Law" Snarlin' Arlen Spector...

[MichiganConservative]

Foreign laws like ancient Hebrew laws?

So, you're down with the US Supreme Court using current, "progressive", European laws as a basis to overturn state laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people of that state?

[Publius6961]

I am still unclear whether all justices, on assuming office, use the identically same oath...
Does anyone know?

If it is the same one, does anyone know the exact words that the oath contains?

I see the distinct probability that some Supreme Court Justices have repeatedly broken their oath of office, and then added insult to injury in their subsequent explanations.

[the invisib1e hand]

it's hard to see invoking foreign law as upholding the Constitution of the United States. Can someone tell me why we're just sitting around watching this? What is the proper remedy?

[mountainlyons]

It seems that every liberal is trying to see who is the biggest traitor!

[ndt]

On the contrary what I said was "it is not a good idea" period, no exceptions.

[Kretek]

This foreign law stuff is merely a pretext; the real "offense" is rendering a decision with which people politically disagree.

[Between the Lines]

I am still unclear whether all justices, on assuming office, use the identically same oath... Does anyone know? If it is the same one, does anyone know the exact words that the oath contains?

Section 3331 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code requires high-ranking officers, including Supreme Court justices, to take this oath: "I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

[Steve Van Doorn]

I am a little confused. Our laws are based on Roman law. We created law from Roman law. Blacks law is based on Roman law. Our whole legal system is based on foreign law. I thought this was true from the bingeing of our country?

I am sorry, but what am I missing?

[adorno]

The only way to prevent activist judges is to hold them accountable. Who would they be accountable to? The people. The constitution was written for the U.S. and hence the people.

Judges can be held accuntable directly by the people voting for or against them. Appointments by the president and governors and approval by the elected officials is not working.

Let the people decide who should be judging them.

[brooklyn dave]

Maybe we should give Sharia law a little try over here. Especially for killers and thieves.

[Modernman]

No.

Dumb decisions are not impeachable.

[brooklyn dave]

Steve, no we are based on English Common law. Even though we use many terms from Roman Law it isn't the basis of our law.

[Steve Van Doorn]

bingeing = beginning

[brooklyn dave]

If we are going to be rules by the Supremes, maybe Diana Ross and two other bewigged black sistahs can do a more interesting job LOL

[An Old Marine]

"a closed small group of unelected men, answerable to no one, deciding the fate of a great nation by the criteria of their own prejudice."

Ronald Reagan speaking of the Soviet Politiboro in 1982

[Steve Van Doorn]

"we are based on English Common law"

that is true.. and where did they get theirs from?

[bigsigh]

Does your reply mean that you believe roman law did not influence english common law?

[Non-Sequitur]

I clicked on the link and actually read the majority decision, something Schlafly apparently did not. Before I stopped counting I noted at least 25 citations from prior decisions of the Supreme Court and lower courts that Justice Kennedy used to support the majority ruling. And that was before Justice Kennedy said, "The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."

So Phyllis is full of crap. The Court did not rely on international law for their decision, but mentioned that law in the course of their majority ruling. The Court, as it should have, relied on precedent from U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings. There is nothing to impeach over.