Justices argue international law

The Washington Times ^ | April 25, 2005 | Guy Taylor

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com

---

Justices argue international law

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."

[SpaceBar]

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.

[rellimpank]

-- Justice Scalia said "foreign law is totally irrelevant" on most issues, ---

--the words of the next Chief Justice--hopefully.

[nextthunder]

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm



Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[chainsaw]

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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

O'Connor's attitude is scary. She's power drunk.

[America's Resolve]

Why set precedent when we can follow it? *shrug*

[Major Matt Mason]

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.

[mlc9852]

The push towards one-world government continues with the help of the US Supreme Court.

[Malesherbes]

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?

[law student]

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)

[neverdem]

Welcome to FreeRepublic.com for your first post. I'm sure we'll be thrilled with your insights.

[AnimalLover]

BTTT