[Chancellor Palpatine]

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

[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?

[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.

[CatoRenasci]

This is a difficult area of Constitutional jurisprudence, and one in which conservatives should tread carefully, guided by serious conservative judicial scholars, if we wish to have any effect upon the court.

The fact is, American law, Constitutional and otherwise, federal and state, has always looked to decisions of other common law courts (whether of other states or other common law countries) for guidance where there were no controllling decisions. This is especially likely to come up at the Supreme Court, because cases only go to the Supreme Court if there isn't a controlling Supreme Court decision on the issue in question.

The problem arises when the Supremee look to courts that are not common law courts, which means all of the European courts except the British and Irish, and most of the other courts in the world. Those courts do not have our traditions of limited powers of government, unalienable rights of individuals, and such things as the presumption of innocence and a right against self-incrimination in criminal trials.

My take on this is that it is of great concern, but that we must be discerning in which issues should and should not take judicial notice of other laws.

[jmc813]

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

Do you agree with her general jist here?