Justice Ginsburg Backs Value of Foreign Law

NY Times ^ | April 2, 2005 | ANNE E. KORNBLUT

[potlatch]

Bump!

[dagnabbit]

Dr. Rice described Justice Ginsberg as "a great and good friend," adding that they also happened to be neighbors.

I will now consider taking my "Condi in '08" bumper sticker off of the Blazer.

This sort of thing, along with the some of the Bush family kisses blown towards the Clintons, and the appointment of La Raza Gonzales as AG are all signs - that maybe we shouldn't expect too much regarding any Bush SCOTUS pick.

[george wythe]

The most disturbing aspect of the Lawrence decision was the use of foreign law to justify the court's opinions.

If Justice Kennedy sold out, it goes without saying that Ginsberg was even further to the left on this issue.

[Archon of the East]

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson

So where do we meet? You know to get sized for knickers?

[pollywog]

I cannot believe this!!! Foreign law??????????Sheesh!!!! I tell you , I am beginning to wonder WHO we can trust any more!!!

[Pharmboy]

Great point.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions on Friday, rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account."

Then she should resign and join the ICC at the Hague.

[Pharmboy]

I understand your point, but, as a poster pointed out above, when foreign law is considered, it should be our legislatures considering them and not the courts. The local and state courts follow their laws, and the Supremes follow the Constitution.

I mind not a whit if the House looks at how Peru handles their social security-like system.

[Pharmboy]

Y'know, it would be great to have actors dress up as The Founders and stand in front of Congress quoting from themselves.

[Colorado Buckeye]

These comments are a direct response to DeLay...The Judiciary is circling the wagons..

Let them circle. It's time to open fire, with the impeachment cannons.

[MarkL]

Great point.

Thanks. I was really surprised when I heard that Justice Scalia made the same point in a debate. Maybe shocked would be a better word.

In my case, saying that I came up with the same idea as Justice Scalia would be like saying, "Every now and then a blind hog will find an acorn!" It goes without saying that I'm the blind hog.

Mark

[GeekDejure]

Some serious thought needs to go into possible legal avenues to
have the hag of the ACLU removed from the bench.

=======

Oh yeah? And just how do you propose we accomplish said removal?

Ginsburg will remain on the bench till she dies (hint hint) !!! ;-))

[drpix]

I couldn't begin to estimate the number of Supreme Court decisions which included quotes from the writings of Sir William Blackstone in their decisions. I suppose Justice Scalia would be ripping apart Chief Justice Marshall for that as well.

Nice try BUT my bet is every one of those quotes were of the Blackstone ideas that were incorporated by our founding fathers into the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and not those that would change it. Blackstone wrote "The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong". Do you think we could/should reinterpret the Constitution to bring back a monarchy?

[Aetius]

This is another reason too be highly suspicious of Rice. I mean, it could be that she's just being nice, but its frightening to think of the type of judges Rice would nominate if she were ever elected.

But anyway, Ginsberg is a far-left extremist, and the GOP senate should have voted her down, in the full senate, when she was nominated. I believe she was on record before her nomination as saying she considered traditional marriage laws to be 'unconstitutional', yet the GOP apparently took no notice of it.

Its just more proof that the Democrats are better at picking judges than the GOP. By that I mean that while the GOP often screws up and picks bad judges, the Democrats never screw up and pick good ones. They are perfect in their ability to pick horrible judges. They never fail to do so.

Its why relying on Bush making good judicial nominations simply isn't enough to protect against judicial activism. The other two, supposedly co-equal branches have to stand up to the Courts if their usurpation of power is to ever be checked and pushed back.

[azhenfud]

Senility reigns in a black robe.

[An Old Marine]

Makes you wonder if any of these judges ever studied any law or history.

Or maybe they're just STUPID.

[An Old Marine]

Give her the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe she wasn't listening. Or maybe she's too stupid to understand the oath.

Of course that argues to your point doesn't it.