Skip to comments.
Bypass Constitution?
The Washington Times ^
| October 30, 2003
| Greg Pierce
Posted on 10/30/2003 5:27:22 AM PST by HarleyD
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: impeachscotus; internationallaw; oconnor; scotus; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
It will be a sad day when our laws are based upon what is decided in France-oops, it's already here!
1
posted on
10/30/2003 5:27:22 AM PST
by
HarleyD
To: HarleyD
Sadder still that Republican admininstrations bave us O'Conner and Suiter.
2
posted on
10/30/2003 5:28:58 AM PST
by
Swanks
To: HarleyD
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.
To: 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"Will someone post a quote of the oath of office for SCOTUS Justices, please.
4
posted on
10/30/2003 5:33:27 AM PST
by
NetValue
(They are not Americans, they're democrats.)
To: HarleyD; Catspaw
That is really a misleading headline. She never said what the headline implies she said.
5
posted on
10/30/2003 5:33:47 AM PST
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Dr. Hasslein was the only human character who had any sense in the "Apes" series)
To: HarleyD
"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.
To: HarleyD
World Opinion? I thought we needed a "compelling state interest" to overide the Constitution. I guess world opinion must be a compelling state interest.
7
posted on
10/30/2003 5:36:47 AM PST
by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
She doesn't have to
say it. All she has to do is advocate
doing it to make the headline accurate.
8
posted on
10/30/2003 5:39:02 AM PST
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
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?
To: HarleyD
Warning: Becoming a justice on the SCOTUS can cause brain damage.
To: ClintonBeGone
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.''
11
posted on
10/30/2003 5:57:32 AM PST
by
NetValue
(They are not Americans, they're democrats.)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: Swanks
Sadder still that Republican admininstrations bave us O'Conner and Suiter.GO PUBBIES, GO!!!!!
(Republicans tend to be stupid)
13
posted on
10/30/2003 6:13:24 AM PST
by
templar
To: HarleyD
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).
14
posted on
10/30/2003 6:22:49 AM PST
by
Mark Felton
(all liberty flow from the barrel of a gun)
To: Buckhead
Time for a retirement lunch for the good justice.
To: HarleyD
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).
To: Buckhead
"They are simply attempting to dignify a naked power grab. What a bunch of frauds."
You raise a very good point.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
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.
To: NetValue
Are not treaties part of the constitution?
To: NetValue
"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.
20
posted on
10/30/2003 6:27:39 AM PST
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson