Supreme Court citing more foreign cases Scalia: Only U.S. views are relevant (Watch Out)

usatoday.com/ ^ | 07/09/03 | Joan Biskupic

[youknow]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's reference to foreign law in a ruling last month that overturned state anti-sodomy statutes stood out as if it were in bold print and capital letters.

Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the ''rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.''

[CyberAnt]

"absolutely chilling"

Can you give us a small sample of what you mean ...??

[Kevin Curry]

Some more socialist poison spewed by your "enlightened" activist unelected superlegislature SCOTUS heroes.

Just invited you over to applaud your pro-sodomy saviors.

[StockAyatollah]

Appeal to who? This was a Supreme Court ruling! Although, the way things are going, it won't be too long before the World Court has ultimate jurisdiction over the US and our clueless, Oprah-watching masses o' sheeple.

[Kudsman]

bttt

[Luis Gonzalez]

The true pro-sodomists were the 1973 Texas legislature who created the right to sodomy for the majority of the people of Texas.

[tpaine]

You're out of your mind curry.

The sky is not falling just because a bunch of queers have established the right to close their bedroom doors from prying snoops like you.

Get a grip. We should all enjoy our right to a private life, liberty under law, and the pursuit of private property.

[4CJ]

For what it's worth they cite Jewish laws. From the brief [emphasis mine]:

The relevant passages from the Talmud demonstrate that the rabbis sought -- with the scientific knowledge and means available to them in their time -- to formulate the quickest, least painful, and least disfiguring methods of execution that the technology of the day would allow within the framework of Biblical texts.

Then they list the 4 acceptable forms of punishment, of which one is "stoning". To that end they write,

A. "Stoning" Was Intended To Be a Quick and Relatively Painless Form of Non-disfiguring Execution.

The Mishna in tractate Sanhedrin (45a) describes execution by "stoning." The condemned defendant was pushed from a platform set high enough above a stone floor that his fall would probably result in instantaneous death. [emphasis mine, citation omitted]

Yet the Bible states otherwise,

[KJV] Numbers 15:
35    And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36    And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

It doesn't say anything about building a platform and PUSHING the guilty party off.

Finally, they conclude,

If execution by the electric chair, as administered in Florida, results in unnecessary pain and disfigurement, it would be unacceptable under the principles underlying the traditional Jewish legal system applied 2000 years ago, and should also be unacceptable under the Eighth Amendment today.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856) notes that, '[t]o attain their social end, punishments should be exemplary, or capable of intimidating those who might be tempted to imitate the guilty.' Electrocution certainly fits that definition. Capital punishment is just that - punishment - not a pat on the back.

[DPB101]

Just thought it weird the court would even accept it. It was a first. No U.S. law or precedent cited. What is next? We going to have Jerry Falwell submit briefs based on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans and Baba Ram Das submit them based on the Brhadaranyaka?

Oh wait..we won't have to worry about Falwell. Armed guards will take him away because the ACLU will have an injunction ready for him when he walks in the door. We might have to worry about Baba Ram Das however.

[First Amendment]

In theory, that could mean the currently conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty,

Since when is this court conservative? Why do they keep saying that? The SCOTUS decision and their kowtowing to European and other like laws, attitudes and what not is the depth of evil.

And now the five of nine are going to Europe to show and tell. Where's the sixth - I thought the Lawrence decision was 6/3.

[First Amendment]

But the pursuit of this endeavor should assuredly be guided by the same vision that Roosevelt outlined in 1941: the vision of a world order founded upon “a cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.” Above all, by the vision of a world order founded upon the essential human freedoms.

You know - you know you signed up on FR today (or is it tomorrow?) and you post this horse s**t! Actually horse s**t is good stuff compared to the communist, leftist, Orwellian doublespeak above. Get thee hence to the bowels of socialist moral relativist one world order "human rights" homonazi dungheap where you slithered from!

[First Amendment]

I humbly apologize for my rude comments. I thought you agreed with the junk you posted. I should have read farther down the thread. So sorry! You should have put "Barf Alert" or something!

[First Amendment]

Get a grip. We should all enjoy our right to a private life, liberty under law, and the pursuit of private property.

Please comment on the justices' taking note of what other countries' laws are and kowtowing to them.

[JimSEA]

When compared to the Warren Court, this is a very conservative Court.

The Warren Court looked at British Common Law in it's criminal procedure and right to council cases. Miranda was influenced by British practices.

We can be thankful that the gay case was not decided on equal protection grounds (for which there is a plausable arguement) but on the much less established right to privacy -- whatever that is.

In short, my feeling is that the Court is moving generally in the right direction but needs a couple more justices not over influenced by social arguments.

Just my two bits.

[Jerr]

American law is founded on our Constitution and previous English law. What the British (or anybody else in the world) are doing now should not have any basis. Once the Supreme Court decided they were going to rewrite the Constitution, rather than just interpret it, it has been down-hill ever since. Now they need to rewrite the Constitution based on what is going on in Europe --- I seem to recall that we fought a war to solve that and two more wars to fix their other mistakes. We don't need to allow much of their influence on our laws.

[rmlew]

The Court should have
1. Politely reminded the applicants that they generally support a "seperation of Church and State" As such, their brief is worthless.
2. Our courts are law courts, not religious ones. As such, the brief has no standing.

[DPB101]

I agree. That amicus was out of line. Everyone is going to line up to file similar briefs and there is not point to it at all. The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs does file some good stuff. This amicus for one. Catholic schools face a similar problem Kiryas Joel does. The city contracts with Catholic educators to provide services to handicapped kids. But the children have to walk across streets to mobile classrooms because of an insane interpretation of the First Amendment.

[Dark Wing]

fyi

[CyberAnt]

I believe that would be the legislature - they could pass a law undoing what the USSC has done.

Plus ... can't the Chief Justice bring a previous matter before the court ...?? I seem to remember reading about that somewhere.

[youknow]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html go read it

[youknow]

bump