On Ginsburg's approach, the justices apparently get to
pick and choose when they will look abroad for guidance.
And, if foreign guidance had been sought in the Lawrence
case, would the justices have looked to the law in Muslim
countries where commission of such acts is a capital
crime? If not, why not? There is no coherent answer to
these questions, and, needless to say, Ginsburg does not
offer one. In reality, reference to foreign law is
nothing more than an ad hoc tool to be invoked or ignored
at will by justices who want to advance a left-wing agenda.
Power line
Ginsburg Rouses Herself From Napping To Criticize US Overseas
posted by Ace
Ace of Spades HQ
Lot of bias here. Hey, it's CNN.
cnn.com
<<< Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has acknowledged a specific death threat against her and her retired colleague Sandra Day O'Connor, blaming lawmakers for fueling "the irrational fringe." >>>
I think anyone making a death threat is a coward and a criminal and should be appropriately punished. But here the "death threat" was a typical posting on the Internet.
I can't help but notice the MSM only gets exercised against such lunatic Internet death threats when a liberal is threatened. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, etc. have been "threatened" thousands of times on the Internet. Where, exactly, is the CNN article about that?
<<< The remarks came in a speech Ginsburg gave recently in South Africa, where she discussed her occasional reference to international law when looking at high court rulings. >>>
The reporter is either incompetent or deliberately misleading. "International law" refers to treaties as well as some law enacted by tribunals which claim to have the capacity to pass binding law on other countries. What is really being challenged is Ginsburg's reliance on foreign law, not "international law," in shaping her USSC decisions. She and the liberals don't merely look at "international law," which may or may not be binding on the US. They specifically cite foreign law -- simply the foreign domestic laws of other countries, which no one even argues is actually binding on the US -- as a determinant of US law.
Throughout the article the reporter will insist on using the term "international law" instead of "foreign law," even when introducing a quote in which Gisburg specifically uses the correct term, "foreign law." Eh, what does she know, right? It sounds more persuasive (to some) to say "international law," so that's what we'll call it.
<<< ...
She said the court's marshal, Pamela Talkin, alerted her and O'Connor to a February 28, 2005, Internet chat posting by an unidentified person to his fellow "commandoes" urging a "patriotic assignment."
According to Ginsburg, the Web author criticized the justices' prior reference of international laws, saying, "This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week." >>>
Again, a horrible thing to write by douchebags who are likely mentally unbalanced. I don't defend this crap. I just want to know when CNN will get to noting the thousands of similar death threats made against Republicans.
<<< Misinformation, said Ginsburg, was driving much of the debate over how the courts reach their decisions.
"Many current members of the U.S. Congress would terminate all debate over whether federal courts should refer to foreign or international legal materials," she said. "For the most part, they would respond to the question with a resounding 'No.' "
Two resolutions in the House and Senate from 2004 would prevent federal courts from using "judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such [materials] inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution."
"To a large extent, I believe, the critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court decisions," Ginsburg said. "We refer to decisions rendered abroad, it bears repetition, not as controlling authorities."
Justice Antonin Scalia has been an outspoken opponent of using foreign law in reference to U.S. statutes. He criticized a ruling last year by Justice Anthony Kennedy that banned the death penalty for juvenile killers.
In it, Kennedy wrote, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime."
That case is cited by many conservatives in their opposition to use of international law in U.S. rulings. Other high court cases citing international law included a 2003 ruling banning state laws against homosexual sodomy. Several lawmakers called for the impeachment of Kennedy and other judges. >>>
Note that every lawmaker and jurist seems to agree that the proper name for these "authorities" is "foreign law." Kennedy refers once to "international opinion," but not international law, which is a different idea. The reporter once calls it "foreign law," as it's supposed to be called, and then goes right back to discussing "international law."
Thanks to Andy the Squirrel. |
