Globalizing the Court

New American ^ | August 25, 2003 | New American

[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.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny

[sauropod]

...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

[sauropod]

</i> Close yer tags!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...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.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

The US has either past the point of no return, or is very close to passing it.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[RWR8189]

now what exactly are they supposed to uphold and defend again??

[88keys]

...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!

[Steve_Seattle]

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

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

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 .''

[Steve_Seattle]

"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?

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

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

[Noachian]

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.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

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

 

 

[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.

/rant

[88keys]

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"!

[Noachian]

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.

[Noachian]

...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.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

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

[11B3]

IMPEACH!!!!