Sandy O'Connor touts global law

AP ^ | October 28, 2004 | Not known

[w6ai5q37b]

Published October 28, 2004 ASSOCIATED PRESS


Justice Sandra Day O'Connor yesterday extolled the growing role of international law in U.S. courts, saying judges would be negligent if they disregarded its importance in a post-September 11 world of heightened tensions.
In a 15-minute speech at Georgetown law school, Justice O'Connor made no mention of the health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, who was hospitalized this week for thyroid cancer and is expected to return to work Monday.
Justice O'Connor said the Supreme Court is increasingly taking cases that demand a better understanding of foreign legal systems. A recent example was last term's terror cases involving the U.S. detention of foreign-born detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, she said.
"International law is no longer a specialty. ... It is vital if judges are to faithfully discharge their duties," Justice O'Connor told attendees at a ceremony dedicating Georgetown's new international law center.
"Since September 11, 2001, we're reminded some nations don't have the rule of law or [know] that it's the key to liberty," she said. Later this term, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of executing juvenile killers. The case has attracted wide interest overseas, with many foreign nations filing briefs pointing to international human rights norms as a justification for outlawing the practice.
Justice O'Connor, who is expected to be a pivotal vote, didn't mention the case, but said recognizing international law could foster more civilized societies in the United States and abroad.

[SALChamps03]

She no longer is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, and should be removed immediately.

[The Red Zone]

In a sense she's no fool. She knows the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, lead the country around by the nose. What better place for internationalist leverage.

[Smokin' Joe]

OH, YEAH! Ever since her first mutterings about taking international court decisions into account when ruling on US cases. Can her.

[Shethink13]

"Since September 11, 2001, we're reminded some nations don't have the rule of law or [know] that it's the key to liberty," she said.

If that's the case, all the more reason to stick to OUR Constitution which is tried and true.

[Jack Black]

Impeach this traitorous BI*CH...it's time to march on DC with pitchforks if we have to.

Caravan of pickups with AR-15s if you ask me.

[SierraWasp]

"Ronald Reagan's worst mistake as President. By far."

Not any worse than Dwight Eisenhour's mistaken appointment of Earl Warren!!! Ike even admitted that was his worst mistake.

This from O'Connor is unacceptable, too!!!

[ApesForEvolution]

We're going to approach territory that even Lincoln didn't want to broach...but he did.

[clee1]

Too late, FRiend, too damn late.

This country, as it is presently constructed, is doomed.

The only possible way to fix it is several decades of REAL conservative leadership. I'm afraid that's not gonna happen.

[clee1]

I prefer a Mr. Nasty Streetsweeper, myself. Makes a nice close-up mess.

[clee1]

It won't.

[clee1]

Might I suggest something with a longer reach?

[Cold Heart]

Impeach, mental illness

[RedMonqey]

IMPEACH!IMPEACH!IMPEACH!IMPEACH!...

[nightdriver]

"Anyone else think this broad should be impeached?"

Absolutely!

But, unfortunately, she's not the worst of them. There are some very smug subversives on the court beside her.

[ApesForEvolution]

I wouldn't do it in this forum FRiend...

[FredZarguna]

Justice O'Connor, who is expected to be a pivotal vote, didn't mention the case, but said recognizing international law could foster more civilized societies in the United States and abroad.

Except that the inability to discriminate between right and wrong are signs of barbarism, not civilization. O'Conner incorrectly believes that an international consensus is a higher order than American law. As a jurist, a professional finder of fact, she should know better.

Consider just one piece of evidence: the International Criminal Court. This is an enormous step backwards in the cause of human rights. It violates very nearly every judicial and evidentiary protection of the Bill or Rights. Its victims can be tried in secret, by secret tribunals, upon secret evidence that even their attorneys cannot see. Their is no right to a trial by peers. And worst of all: the ICC enforces "laws" that do not even exist in the sense the we understand them. The "laws" tried by the ICC are not written by marjoritarian legislatures, and they are not clear, precise and unambiguous, but depend rather on a "consensus understanding" of international "law." Even the penalties for defying such "laws" are not even well defined.

In fine and in sum, the promotion of International Law, and its spotty enforcement, is a descent into the darkness of the rule of men, away from the enlightenment of the rule of law. It is a rejection of 225 years and more of understanding, and a return to the middle ages, when self-appointed tyrants ruled the Earth.

[The Red Zone]

Consider just one piece of evidence: the International Criminal Court. This is an enormous step backwards in the cause of human rights. It violates very nearly every judicial and evidentiary protection of the Bill or Rights. Its victims can be tried in secret, by secret tribunals, upon secret evidence that even their attorneys cannot see. Their is no right to a trial by peers.

And of course Sandra would have an apoplexy if she saw it happened here. Oh well, I guess by your lights a despot Ruler of the World is better than none, Ms. O'Connor.

[Cyclopean Squid]

I took a class in "International Law" at law school, and it was by far my poorest grade (thus far). I was so relieved! If I had done well, I would have feared that there was something wrong with me. As it is, receiving a bad mark in such a farcical class reconfirms my status as an American.

[Old Professer]

Well, at least she waited until his body was cold.

[Jaysun]

Ann Coulter did a good job of describing how absurd the Supreme Court has become:

"Oh, you see an abortion clause in there? OK, I don't see it, but we'll enforce it. Sodomy, too, you say? OK, it's legal. Gay marriage? Just give us a minute to change the law. No prayer in schools? It's out. Go-go dancing is speech, but protest at abortion clinics isn't? Okey-dokey. No Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Somebody get the number of a monument removal service.

What passes for 'constitutional law' can be fairly summarized as: Heads we win, tails you lose. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court."

Judges that interpret the constitution are labeled as "activist" or "dangerous" while judges that literally make up laws from the bench out of thin air are called "main stream" and "fair." It's essential that President Bush be reelected for a number of reasons - the fact that the next President will likely choose judges that remain on the bench for a generation is certainly one of them.