The Supreme Court and Foreign Law

Bizblogger ^ | 03/02/05 | Richie Rich

[Richie Rich]

In Roper v. Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 yesterday that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment to those individuals who were under 18 when they committed the crime, and therefore, unconstitutional. Just 15 years ago the Supreme Court found that the statute in question was constitutional. However, they state that because 18 of the 38 states that have death penalty laws forbid executing minors (at the time of the crime), this represents an emerging national consensus. When will the courts begin interpreting the law rather than writing it? Additionally, they rattled off a list of foreign laws to support their opinion.

In Scalia’s dissent, he wrote, "Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus. Our previous cases have required overwhelming opposition to a challenged practice, generally over a long period of time."

The majority opinion further supports its case by citing a variety of foreign laws, including the U.N. Convention on the Rights of a Child, as part of its reasoning: “The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." To which Scalia dissented, “"Unless the Court has added to its arsenal the power to join and ratify treaties on behalf of the United States, I cannot see how this evidence favors, rather than refutes, [the majority's] position."

[aspiring.hillbilly]

The aboslute most Constution-mocking,,, piece of garbage of a decision that kangaroo court has come up with lately. The five who decided this on the basis of "prevailing public opinion ought to be impeached" And to top it off,,,,in Article 3 section 2 they have NO jurisdiction to rule on this at all.

[DaveTesla]

Justice Breyers decision is obscene.


Justice Breyer is in favor of looking at international law to help influence his decision; he doesn’t really give a clear reason, except to determine whether the customs and mores of the U.S. are within the reasonable standards of the rest of the world. In reality, he looks at examples that will support his opinion.

He states:

Law is not really handed down from on high, even from the Supreme Court. Rather, it emerges. And we're part of it, the clerks are part of it, but only part. And what really survives every time is the result. I tend to think of a conversation among judges, among professors, among law students, among members of the bar, because you need people to put things together, you need people to decide cases, you need people to tell you how it works out in practice. And out of this giant, messy, unbelievably messy conversation emerges law….It's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere.

[Worried Texan]

Of course one of the first to be let off the hook was that Malvo character. Now those of us in Texas has to make changes again. We are a death penalty state, you kill you get the death penalty. Regardless of this age deal. Now we have to redo some of the life sentence laws so they won't get paroled EVER. We have a guy down here that closed a couple up in the trunk of their car and drove them off in a lake to drown. If we don't do something quick, this killer could parole out in some odd years from now. They ever let him out and the father of one of the dead kids will be waiting. Another is the four girls that was killed in that yogurt shop, one of those girls dad states he feels he been cheated again. he'll be waiting. One of these guys told them to let him out and he'd do it again. Why are we saving such animals. We destroy Rabid dogs, what's the difference?

[Paleo Conservative]

We need a constitutional amendment that allows supermajorities in Congress or supermajorities of state legislatures to overturn Supreme Court decisions. That would go a long way to detering judicial overreaching.