Bypass Constitution?

The Washington Times ^ | October 30, 2003 | Greg Pierce

[HarleyD]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will increasingly base its decisions on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

By doing so, the court will make a good impression among people from other countries, she said. "The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," Justice O'Connor said.

[HarleyD]

It will be a sad day when our laws are based upon what is decided in France-oops, it's already here!

[Swanks]

Sadder still that Republican admininstrations bave us O'Conner and Suiter.

[el_texicano]

Though it would have a snow-ball's chance in hell, justices expressing such sentiments as this should be impeached from the court on grounds of subverting the U. S. Constitution which they swore to uphold. I used to have a degree of respect for O'Conner, but this type of comment is treasonous.

[NetValue]

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will increasingly base its decisions on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution"

Will someone post a quote of the oath of office for SCOTUS Justices, please.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

That is really a misleading headline. She never said what the headline implies she said.

[DeuceTraveler]

"By doing so, the court will make a good impression among people from other countries, she said. "The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," Justice O'Connor said."

Alright, it's official. She's off her friggin' rocker.

[Sam Cree]

World Opinion? I thought we needed a "compelling state interest" to overide the Constitution. I guess world opinion must be a compelling state interest.

[William Terrell]

She doesn't have to say it. All she has to do is advocate doing it to make the headline accurate.

[ClintonBeGone]

That is really a misleading headline. She never said what the headline implies she said.

I agree. I think the article is in the context of when international laws/treaties are actually being decided by the court. The quote in the last part of the article also contributes to the misleading nature of the headline. Maybe that's all the headline writer read before doing what they did?

[pabianice]

Warning: Becoming a justice on the SCOTUS can cause brain damage.

[NetValue]

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

[templar]

Sadder still that Republican admininstrations bave us O'Conner and Suiter.

GO PUBBIES, GO!!!!!

(Republicans tend to be stupid)

[Mark Felton]

IMPEACH NOW!

The grounds are clear for impeachment. Violation of Constitutional oath of office, and corruption.

The corruption comes from allowing outside forces to sway the direction of her decisions for personal gain.

In this case the gain is not financial but it is emotional. (a common reason for corruption and blackmail).

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Time for a retirement lunch for the good justice.

[ought-six]

She should stepdown from the court immediately. She has just renounced the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, which she has sworn t uphold. She needs to go, and Ginsburg with her (who has made similar comments in the past).

[ought-six]

"They are simply attempting to dignify a naked power grab. What a bunch of frauds."

You raise a very good point.

[cyncooper]

That is really a misleading headline. She never said what the headline implies she said.

The headline says "Bypass Constitution?" with a question mark.

What she said was:

"I suspect," Justice O'Connor said, "that over time we will rely increasingly — or take notice, at least — increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

The headline, which asks if O'Connor is greenlighting bypassing the U.S. Constitution in favor of international opinion, passes in my book, since she did in fact use the word "rely" (then amended to "or take notice...").

Had the headline ommitted the question mark and outright asserted that she declared the Supreme Court would now disregard The Constitution you would be correct in your complaint.

[ClintonBeGone]

Are not treaties part of the constitution?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

---

O'Connor should have been impeached years ago, when in her majority opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood she stated that even though she acknowledged that Roe v. Wade misinterpreted the Constitution, she was bound to respect stare decisis and uphold the "right" to kill babies. That the Constitution is the highest form of law in the land, and thus will trump any decision by a branch of government, has been a staple of American jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison. If a judge were to write "sure, the Constitution says X, but the President or Congress says Y and I am bound to follow what the President or Congress said," there is no doubt that that judge would be subject to impeachment for violating his oath of office and not abiding by the supremacy of the Constitution. When O'Connor did just that, but instead of following the President follows what 6 judges said back in 1973, she is saying that the opinion of a branch of government is higher law than the Constitution and/or that the Constitution may be amended in a way not provided for in Article V. I don't see how anyone could argue that those aren't grounds for impeachment.

O'Connor is even worse than the extreme liberals in the Court, since at least the liberals purport to be interpreting the Constitution when they discover a "right" to abortion, but O'Connor is saying "the Constitution does not create that right, but this 30-year-old case is higher law than the Constitution itself." That's just obscene.