[AmishDude]

convictions overseas in such courts shouldn't extend such tyranny back to our own shores.

This is NOT the supreme court's decision to make. Cite me chapter and verse in the Constitution that Congress cannot pass a law that recognizes judicial decisions that take place in another country. Congress has the power to do this and SCOTUS does not have the power to take it away.

[Dead Corpse]

Sections 8,9, and 10 of Article 1 contain no such power for Congress. Please cite the article and section that contains the Congressional power to hold a US citizne infamous for a crime committed outside thier jurisdiction and outside of US Law.

[EagleUSA]

Cite me chapter and verse in the Constitution that Congress cannot pass a law that recognizes judicial decisions that take place in another country.
======
The issue is not whether the Congress can GENERATE LAWS based on whatever, but the correctness of the SUPREME COURT to INTERPRET U.S. LAW BASED ON EVENTS OR LAWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. These two very distinctly different issues and functions are being confused here. The discussion is about the SC's decisions, NOT ABOUT THE MAKING OF LAWS. At least that is my point.

[ctdonath2]

Wrong question. Congress can only do what the Constitution explicitly permits. Show me in the Constitution where Congress can subject citizens' rights to the laws of oppressive regimes.

[Southack]

"This is NOT the supreme court's decision to make. Cite me chapter and verse in the Constitution that Congress cannot pass a law that recognizes judicial decisions that take place in another country. Congress has the power to do this and SCOTUS does not have the power to take it away."

Congress *does* have the power that you refer to above, and the Judicial Branch *can't* take it away.

But that's not what was done here. The Judicial Branch *does* have the authority to review (and try) individual cases, and on an individual case basis the Judiciary can say that it believes that Congress wrote up something that it didn't intend to actually apply tyrannically against a U.S. citizen.

Which is precisely what the SCOTUS did. The SCOTUS made the correct ruling, including noting that if Congress REALLY DID intend to include this level of tyranny in the law that it could simply reword the law to say so.

That's precisely the correct action to take. Protect the individual citizen from the tyranny of a presumed Congressional mistake, while notifying Congress that you will apply their tyranny if that's what they really want (i.e. if there was actually no error in the law).

This is a rare case of the SCOTUS / federal court system actually doing the right thing without being an activist court (e.g. Roe v Wade, which contradicted clear federal and state statutes and had no actuall legal basis of support).

It may look like judicial activism, but by informing Congress that the SCOTUS *will* apply the "any world court" version if Congress really wants it, the SCOTUS made the right call.

[FreedomCalls]

Cite me chapter and verse in the Constitution that Congress cannot pass a law that recognizes judicial decisions that take place in another country.

The Fifth Amendment: No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Foreign courts do not provide due process.