Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

Eagle Forum ^ | March 16, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Darksheare]

So what basis for law would you like?
Anarchy?

[ElPatriota]

YES! (impeached, fired, whatever). I don't want to sound like a fool because I am not an authority on this, but common sense tells me that any judge making decisions for U.S. citizens, should relay only and exclusively on U.S. law.

Anyone deviating from this simple principle should be fired. This is so clear and simple in my mind, that I actully understand it. :)

[Arrowhead1952]

Maybe SCOTUS should have looked at these two instances as well.

Iran's 'desert vampire' executed

N. Korea: First-ever Video of Public Execution Smuggled Out(PHOTOs here; Japan's N-TV to air video)

[Dead Corpse]

NOt to start a side argument, but that would depend on your definition of "anarchy".

[Darksheare]

Well, yeah.
It would depend on one's definition of anarchy.

[adorno]

"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." Of course not! He wasn't stupid enough to say that it had a direct influence on the decision, even if it did.

[Dead Corpse]

I really wasn't trying to be flippant. And the differences between prevailing "anarchy" definitions/theories are rather profound.

[Non-Sequitur]

Of course not! He wasn't stupid enough to say that it had a direct influence on the decision, even if it did.

Sure. The 25+ citations from U.S. cases was just to throw everybody off track, right? </sarcasm>

[Darksheare]

I know.

[Buffalo Bob]

If the Supreme court makes a decision that is unconstitutional, who calls them on that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Next question?

[Joe Brower]

"the real "offense" is rendering a decision with which people politically disagree."

Nope. The real offense is their blatant disregard for their oath of office in defying the written word of the U.S. Constitution. See post #29.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I think bringing foreign laws into play in an American court is actually a capital offense.

Capital executable offense.

[Steve Van Doorn]

You can disagree with their decisions but I don’t see this as impeachable.

Our laws have always been based on foreign law. Judges must take into consideration of Tariffs and should observe foreign law to influence not take directly from the foreign law, which I see no sign of that here.

[Paleo Conservative]

Yes!

[agere_contra]

"American Laws" must mean those laws and governances actually adopted by the legislature of the US. What the provenance of these laws is is immaterial. They could be originally from Wales, and it wouldn't matter. Once adopted, they are American laws.

Now Phyllis is recommending impeachment for use of foreign laws - meaning those laws and governances NOT adopted by the legislature of the US, but other legislatures (and not necessarily currently existing legislatures)

Some posters are getting a bit hung up on where America got its laws from. Doesn't matter. What matters is what laws it has adopted - those are what the courts should be judging, and are the only things that fall within their competence. Phyllis is onto something - if its possible to impeach a President for doing his job badly (and it is), then it's certainly possible to impeach a judge.

[Steve Van Doorn]

But in this case it was influnced not taken directly from foreign law.

[Modernman]

Of course not! He wasn't stupid enough to say that it had a direct influence on the decision, even if it did.

So, you have psychic powers, I take it?

[brooklyn dave]

No just that Common Law is the more direct basis

[Publius6961]

You can disagree with their decisions but I don’t see this as impeachable.

Who judges the Judgers?

How does one deal with a rogue Supreme? it may have been "unthinkable" until recently, but so what?

Lots of things are accepted today that were unthinkable 50 years ago...

[bigsigh]

dave of course because the romans were around with a more sophisticated legal system when the brits were still fighting naked.