Posted on 10/31/2003 9:32:28 AM PST by stop_fascism
The U.S. judiciary should pay more attention to international court decisions to help enrich our nation's standing abroad, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Tuesday."The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," O'Connor said.
On the whole, the U.S. judicial system leaves a favorable impression around the world, she said "but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out."
The 73-year-old justice, considered by many to be the most influential member of the nation's highest court, made her remarks to a dinner sponsored by the Southern Center for International Studies.
O'Connor received the Atlanta center's World Justice Award at the dinner at the Marriott hotel in Buckhead.
Former Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Dorothy Toth Beasley presented O'Connor with the award.
For decades, O'Connor said, U.S. courts declined to consider international law when reaching important decisions.
But in recent years, she said, the U.S. Supreme Court began acknowledging the thoughts of the global community.
The first such case was decided in 2002 when the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, she said. In arriving at that decision, O'Connor said, the high court noted that the world community overwhelmingly disapproved of the practice.
Also influential was a court brief filed by American diplomats who discussed the difficulties confronted in their foreign missions because of U.S. death penalty practices, she said.
The second ruling cited by O'Connor was, as she called it, "the famous or perhaps infamous case," in which the Supreme Court overturned the Texas anti-sodomy law.
In that decision, the Supreme Court majority relied partly on a series of decisions by European courts on the same issue, O'Connor said.
"I suspect," 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."
Doing so, she added, "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression."
Hmm. And here I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to follow the U.S. Constitution. Silly me. Next, she'll start making decisions based on the U.N. Charter.
--Boris
I agree
And I am hoping it is a lot different what I just read
Is there a world constitution? The only bearing world opinion has on our laws is through our values as a society. These can make it into law through our elected representatives. Yo! O'Connor! That's how it's done constitutionally!
How in the world do you rule something unconstitutional based on something extraconstitutional and keep a straight face?
Impeach... NOW!
Decided, reported and edited by whom?
The Martha Stewart of the Supreme Court?
She's gotta go... soon!
I would really hope so.!
This statement is beyond the pale, if not taken out of context. It is really imperative that President Bush, and the Senate Republicans, get down in the trenches with the rat obstructionists, and win the battle over President Bush's nominee's!!
I agree
And we need to impeach a gaggle of NWO SCOTUS "justices!"
Listening to the views of others and gaining a perspective on both sides of an argument is what a good judge should do. Interested parties of all stripes, from the John Birchers to the ACLU, can file an amicus brief with the court. No one seems to have a problem with that.
I think there are a lot of people here reading WAY too much into this. The Supreme Court is well within its right to take into consideration any perspectives and opinions it might deem appropriate. In fact, it's quite prudent of them to do so.
You say this as if our constitution isn't subject to any interpretation whatsoever. If that's the case, then what's the purpose of amicus briefs? Why are there two differing opinions presented in the court? Why is there a Supreme Court at all? If everything is so settled, so cut and dry, there should be no dispute and no use for a court.
Of course, that's silly and disingenuous. But no more so than the rhetoric of those inferring that O'Connor is subjugating the U.S. Constitution to European courts.
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.