Skip to comments.
Justices argue international law
The Washington Times ^
| April 25, 2005
| Guy Taylor
Posted on 04/25/2005 2:56:43 PM PDT by neverdem
|The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com
By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 25, 2005
Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer clashed last week over the role of international law and foreign judges at a rare group discussion in Washington.
At the forum, broadcast on C-SPAN television last week, Justice Breyer appeared the most sympathetic to justices citing international law and foreign court decisions, saying the high court is faced with "more and more cases" in which the laws of other countries are relevant.
"Where there is disagreement is how to use the law of other nations where we have some of those very open-ended interpretations of the word 'liberty' or 'cruel and unusual punishment,'" he said.
"It's appropriate in some instances to look to how other courts might have decided similar issues," although laws of other countries "do not bind us by any means."
Justice Scalia said "foreign law is totally irrelevant" on most issues, such as the original meaning of the Constitution or what Americans now see as fundamental rights.
"It doesn't show what the Constitution originally meant, and it doesn't show what is fundamentally important to Americans today," he said. "It shows what's fundamentally important to somebody else today."
Justice O'Connor, in her first public remarks on the issue, called the debate over the role of foreign law "much ado about nothing."
"There are areas where we look to foreign law to interpret treaties that other nations and we have joined," she said. "Of course we look to foreign law."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: globalism; internationallaw; scotus; transjudicialism
posted on 04/25/2005 2:56:45 PM PDT
We are in deep trouble if the notion of superceding US law with something drafted in Brussels is even being entertained by the Supreme Court.
posted on 04/25/2005 3:11:03 PM PDT
-- Justice Scalia said "foreign law is totally irrelevant" on most issues,
--the words of the next Chief Justice--hopefully.
posted on 04/25/2005 3:15:07 PM PDT
(urbanites don' t understand the cultural deprivation of not being raised on a farm:NRABenefactor)
The supreme court's job is to interpret all laws in relation to our United States Constitution. It is the job of congress to adjust the law to various situations globally, not the supreme court.
Where does the SC get off legislating from their chambers. That is what we elected the members of congress to do.
posted on 04/25/2005 3:30:48 PM PDT
O'Connor's attitude is scary. She's power drunk.
posted on 04/25/2005 3:36:16 PM PDT
by The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
Why set precedent when we can follow it? *shrug*
posted on 04/25/2005 3:40:52 PM PDT
by America's Resolve
(Liberal Democrats are liars, cheats and thieves with no morals, scruples, ethics or honor!)
Citing international law in the Supreme Court = Time to retire from the Supreme Court.
A future litmus test for any SC nominee should be a nominee's view on the use of international law in American courts. Any nominee that seems agreeable to doing this should automatically be rejected.
posted on 04/25/2005 3:42:16 PM PDT
by Major Matt Mason
(The U.S. Senate - Freedom's Graveyard)
The push towards one-world government continues with the help of the US Supreme Court.
posted on 04/25/2005 3:50:47 PM PDT
It is interesting that the wisdom extracted from foreign judges always seems to be written in English. Doesn't multiculturalism require that German, Russian, Chinese, and Swahili decisions be considered - not to mention the Sharia?
sad you are unaware that the constitition does compel the executive to honor the "law of nations" ergo INTERNATIONAL LAW (which funny enough the U.S. was the primary advocate for writing/advocating for Human rights treaties AND it invokes whenever it wants to be justified in dropping a few bombs in the name of freedom)
you condemn the Court for finally recognizing it's role is to check/balance the exec power & ensure the government is comlying by the international laws it has adopted via the ratification process (you know when the senate has to vote & say yes we agree to be bound by the treaty between nations)
finally, when the U.S. is wronged, it also goes to the international courts for remedies (see iran hostages--compelling other countries to abide by international law/treaties)
posted on 04/25/2005 9:00:53 PM PDT
by law student
(good for the goose but not the gander?)
To: law student; Admin Moderator
Welcome to FreeRepublic.com for your first post. I'm sure we'll be thrilled with your insights.
posted on 04/25/2005 9:32:06 PM PDT
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
posted on 04/26/2005 12:19:52 AM PDT
( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson