Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Globalizing the Court
New American ^ | August 25, 2003 | New American

Posted on 08/25/2003 9:50:26 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS

In late July and early August, Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas met "with European judges to discuss the new European Constitution," reported the Legal Times. "And most of those five justices are also making other trips this summer to locales such as Luxembourg, Paris, and Salzburg."

"In short, another typical summer of international travel for the modern day Supreme Court," continued the report. "But the justices’ wanderlust has taken on extra significance in light of the Court’s newfound interest in invoking the rulings and view of foreign courts and international authorities in its own jurisprudence."

As previously noted by this magazine (see "Internationalizing the Court" in our July 28th issue, and "Globalizing the Supreme Court" in our August 17, 1998 issue), members of the Supreme Court — particularly Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and O’Connor, all of whom belong to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations — have been working to "harmonize" the court’s rulings with international law. Those efforts are seen in citations from European court rulings in the recent Lawrence v. Texas decision on homosexual "rights," and the Grutter v. Bollinger decision on affirmative action.

"This was a breakthrough term," exults Yale Law School professor Harold Koh, assistant secretary of state for human rights under Bill Clinton. "The veil has been lifted. The ostrich’s head came out of the sand. And it’s a function, really, of how much they [the Supreme Court justices] travel."

It is expected that by mingling with foreign jurists, the justices will become socialized into adopting a more globalist outlook. A case in point occurred at an American Bar Association panel discussion in Washington three years ago. After Justice Kennedy stated that foreign courts are too remote and unknown for the American public to accept, a prominent British jurist complained: "Your system is quite certain it has nothing much to learn from us."

A good and sufficient answer would have been: "Indeed it is, since our system is defined by our Constitution — a document American judges, unlike foreign jurists, swear to uphold." However, as the Legal Times notes, "Kennedy appears to be a convert" to a more globalist view of law, as evidenced by the fact that his majority opinion in Lawrence cited a decision by the European Court of Human Rights.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; euconstitution; globalization; hangemhigh; scotus; transjudicialism; treason
Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny
1 posted on 08/25/2003 9:50:26 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS; hellinahandcart
...and Clarence Thomas met "with European judges to discuss the new European Constitution," reported the Legal Times."

WTF? The others I would have expected.

Rectitudine Sto. Sauropod

2 posted on 08/25/2003 9:51:45 AM PDT by sauropod (Until Kofi Annan rides buses in Jerusalem, he just won't care. - The Spotted Owl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
</i> Close yer tags!
3 posted on 08/25/2003 9:52:11 AM PDT by sauropod (Until Kofi Annan rides buses in Jerusalem, he just won't care. - The Spotted Owl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
...It is expected that by mingling with foreign jurists, the justices will become socialized into adopting a more globalist outlook...

Another Euro-ruling and they had better adopt another country to live in.
4 posted on 08/25/2003 9:59:59 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
The US has either past the point of no return, or is very close to passing it.
5 posted on 08/25/2003 10:01:07 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
INTREP
6 posted on 08/25/2003 10:11:35 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
now what exactly are they supposed to uphold and defend again??
7 posted on 08/25/2003 10:13:15 AM PDT by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
...and Clarence Thomas met "with European judges to discuss the new European Constitution," reported the Legal Times."

Well, somebody has to be the "voice of truth and reason", LOL!! He was just giving 'em good advice, and countering the "globalists", IMO...

So...what happens if the SCOTUS rules the American Constitution is un-Constitutional?!? I expect they would have to be impeached under "Scottish law"? Well, whatever it takes...SHEESH!

8 posted on 08/25/2003 10:22:36 AM PDT by 88keys (just KIDDING about the Scottish law...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
These recent Supreme Court rulings incorporating concepts from international law haven't received nearly as much attention as they deserve, and what attention they have received has unfortunately been largely favorable. I can think of no greater threat to the Constitution, and particularly to the Second Amendment protection of gun ownership. No nominee to the Supreme Court who supports incorporating contemporary international law into the Constitution should be approved
9 posted on 08/25/2003 10:41:01 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Supreme Court Justices (Judicial Branch)

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God EUROPE .''

10 posted on 08/25/2003 10:41:04 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
"So...what happens if the SCOTUS rules the American Constitution is un-Constitutional?!?"

Crazy as it sounds, this is what the Court seems to be heading towards - nullification of our own Constitution because it is seen as being contradicted and overruled by international law. Does the Second Amendment come to mind?
11 posted on 08/25/2003 10:43:37 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

I can think of no greater threat to the Constitution, and particularly to the Second Amendment protection of gun ownership.

Saving the Constitution from the Courts, RKBA Bookstore, ... ,

Today, we can extend the idea of peace through democracy to cover freedom from government genocide and mass murder. But to do so requires overcoming incredible mass ignorance even about the megamurders for which authoritarian and totalitarian governments have been responsible. Other Democratic Peace Documents On This Site

By shooting, drowning, burying alive, stabbing, torture, beating, suffocation, starvation, exposure, poison, crushing, and other countless ways that lives can be wiped out, governments have killed unarmed and helpless people. Intentionally. With forethought. This is murder. It is democide.
...democide is a government's murder of people for whatever reason; genocide is the murder of people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or language. Freedom Virtually Ends Genocide And Mass Murder

12 posted on 08/25/2003 10:44:07 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
This is absurd. For American Supreme Court Justices to even consider equating alien jurisprudence with American Constitutional jurisprudence is an affront to the American people and the American Congress.

That British jurist was correct by saying that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans - we don't! But, Europeans have a lot to learn from American Constitutional justice.

The very fact that our SCOTUS Justices openly admit that they have used foreign precedents in the past, and will use them in the future, should have the Congress forming a committee to investigate the Judiciary and its practices. These admissions are evidence that these people are not sitting on the bench in good behavior, and have all but abandoned their oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. Surely this is grounds for a congressional investigation. Yet, what we get from the Congress is nothing but silence.

If the High Court continues to dilute the Founder's intent of the Constitution with foreign Socialist doctrine, and the Congress turns a blind eye, what defense do the American people have against the High Court's excesses?

If the Founding Fathers had of foreseen the abuse of power by the High Court they would have done what Americans today should do: Subject the High Court to direct elections. The Founding Fathers gave us the means to correct abuses of power, but the American people have to have the spine to use it.
13 posted on 08/25/2003 10:53:50 AM PDT by Noachian (Legislation Without Representation Is Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

Subject the High Court to direct elections. The Founding Fathers gave us the means to correct abuses of power, but the American people have to have the spine to use it.


Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Texas Straight Talk: An Interview With Ron Paul - Sierra Times. ...

Only half would vote for Constitution

 

 

14 posted on 08/25/2003 10:58:54 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Congress needs to ask every prospective judge what their stance is on using international precedent to adjudicate American law. If they're for it, they're out!

Let US legislators analyze international systems to see if there's anything we can learn. The judicial branch's job is to rule on US law, based on the Constitution, period.

/rant
15 posted on 08/25/2003 10:58:54 AM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ellery; Noachian; Steve_Seattle
ellery, that's no "rant"...you're absolutely right!

"Direct democracy" (election of judges) is not the answer (not to be "elitist", but the law is complicated, and many folks understood Al Gore's presidential "agenda" much better than they understood the consequences OR the idea behind the "ElectorIal" College!! not to mention "motor-voter"...)...

I do think that some "activism" on the part of the electorate is needed, in order to counter-act the "judicial activism" of those three pro-"international law" judges. This is a representative republic, and we and the Congress need to keep an eye on the "checks and balances"...if all else fails, we are still Americans and we'll just have a "Washington tea party"!

16 posted on 08/25/2003 11:27:28 AM PDT by 88keys (perhaps we could sue?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ellery
Congress needs to ask every prospective judge what their stance is on using international precedent to adjudicate American law. If they're for it, they're out!

Let US legislators analyze international systems to see if there's anything we can learn. The judicial branch's job is to rule on US law, based on the Constitution, period.

I'd agree with that IF the Congress would do it. I doubt that they will. I have little faith in Congress to stand up to a Judiciary they've let run loose for so long.

The problem isn't so much that the Judiciary abuses its power, but that the Congress lets it happen.

Congress has the power to regulate the Court and it also holds the purse strings. The High Court would never have gotten so far out of control if the Congress had used its authority when Court activism first started years ago. All of the High Courts excesses can be traced back directly to the failure of Congress to oversee the Judiciary, and this has left the American people defenseless to a rogue court.

The American people are being held to de facto legislation without the representation of their elected officials. If the people have no say in who makes their laws, and cannot hold those who make them accountable, then the people have a duty, a right, to make changes in their government.
17 posted on 08/25/2003 11:27:57 AM PDT by Noachian (Legislation Without Representation Is Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
...the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin.

I take it that you're faith in the American people is secondary to your faith in a small band of politicians trying to do the right thing.

I understand your reasoning, but we are still a government By, Of, and For the people. To deny that is to deny the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the reasoning of Constitution itself. If I had to choose between an oligarachy of judges, a do-nothing Congress, or the American people I'd put my money on the people.
18 posted on 08/25/2003 11:50:15 AM PDT by Noachian (Legislation Without Representation Is Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

I'd put my money on 1/5 of the people.

19 posted on 08/25/2003 12:05:23 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
IMPEACH!!!!
20 posted on 08/25/2003 12:31:25 PM PDT by 11B3 (Looking for a belt-fed, multi-barreled 12 guage. It's Liberal season, no daily limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
This is a representative republic, and we and the Congress need to keep an eye on the "checks and balances"...if all else fails, we are still Americans and we'll just have a "Washington tea party"!

Actually the people need to keep an eye on Congress. Congress is where the problem of a run-away Judiciary started and still continues. If the American people were to take Congress to task each time the High Court made a abhorant social ruling Congress may get the idea that they should do something about judicial activism.

The Congress has the power to put the brakes on this rogue Court, and they won't do it. So, the problems with the High Court goes right back to the failure of the Congress to take action when action was needed.

If the Congress refuses to do its job then the people are left at the mercy of the unelected Court, and the people have a right to make changes in government to protect themselves. That would mean an amendment to place the Judiciary in the hands of the people who consent to be governed.

I do think that some "activism" on the part of the electorate is needed...

Activism on the right is poorly organized. As much as I abhor the left they do a much better job in the area of activism. The right could learn much from the left's use of political tactics, but learning and doing are two separate things.

It's way past time for the right to be as active as the left, and not just in church or country club meetings. The right needs people who are as loud, and as in your face, as the left. What works for the left can work for the right.
21 posted on 08/25/2003 1:21:37 PM PDT by Noachian (Legislation Without Representation Is Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Noachian
Great point. Where do we start? With Congress?
22 posted on 08/25/2003 2:00:45 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ellery
Great point. Where do we start? With Congress?

Nope. You don't start at the top. You start at the grassroots level.

Start small - grow big. Nothing happens overnight. It will take time.

Start "fishing" for people with the same sentiments as you in your own neighborhood. You don't need many, but they do have be able to make political waves and they must be committed for the long haul. These are your core activists.

All politics are local so decide a strategy AGAINST a politician of your choosing in your area. Once you have a strategy concentrate your core activists and any sympathizers you may find against that one political target.

Meanwhile find a hot button social issue, in your area, that you and your activists can be FOR. Ally yourself with those who are also for the same issue, and work the issue.

Get media attention, and the public's attention. Be loud - be vocal.

Facts are great if you have them, but innuendo is more important. Remember that public perception IS reality.

There is no such thing as failure only temporary setbacks and flawed strategies.

Continue to expand your base, and seek out activists in other areas to ally yourself with. Become a mentor to others who wish to be activists outside your area.

After you've mastered local politics set your sights on national figures.

That's how the left does it, and it works.
23 posted on 08/25/2003 6:28:31 PM PDT by Noachian (Legislation Without Representation Is Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson