High court justices debate foreign rulings [Scalia v Breyer]

Washington Times ^ | Jan 14 2004

[george wythe]

Two U.S. Supreme Court justices debated whether foreign court rulings should influence their decisions, USA Today reported Friday.

Antonin Scalia, appointed by President Reagan, and Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, debated the issue Thursday at Washington's American University.

"We don't have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world, and we never have," said Scalia, who opposes looking to foreign rulings to decide U.S. cases.

To which Breyer responded: "You can learn something" from foreign countries, adding that it is a matter of "opening your eyes to things that are going on elsewhere."

[StonyBurk]

But Breyer ha stold Law school students that there is NO way
anyone can tell what the Constitution means.(Unless one is
on the supreme Court.) 2001 "Those more literal judges who
emphasize language,history, tradition and precedent cannot
justify their practices by claiming it is what the framers
wanted." NY University School of Law Stephen J.Breyer AP story 23 Oct.2001

[StonyBurk]

Our Founding Fathers believed the Judiciary was the
weakest branch of government -- and unless they had Congress
and /or the Executive to back their brand of despotic rule
the people would have nothing to fear. Sadly we have allowed or chosen as our elected representative people who wil NOT stand up to the freaking drag queens of the Judiciary.

[Domangart]

No he was telling the turks that he is gay. Turkish law based on custom.

[Gritty]

I fail to see why we should give a good sh!tt what the rest of the world considers as their own law or why it is applicable to us. That's their business, not ours.

Judges are supposed to make judgments based on our laws guided by our Constitution, not those of alien and foreign powers. That is their charter. They are supposed to work for us, not them.

If they can't do that at a bare minimum, they should be impeached and removed from office in disgrace - not feted on chin-wagging TV forums as if they are worth listening to.

[usurper]

I wonder why, if europes rulings are ok why no sharia rulings in the middle east. i mean how do they pick and choose what ruling they want to follow?

I was going to post the same thing. If euro law is somehow valid why is it more valid that tribal law in the Congo? Any supreme who sights foreign law in reaching a decision on the constitutionality of US law should be immediately impeached for acting outside the scope of their authority.

[rottweiller_inc]

i completely agree

[sevry]

“Do we just use foreign law selectively? When it agrees with what the judges would like the cases to say, we use the foreign law and when it doesn’t, we don’t use it?” Scalia asked.

He nailed it. Cross-culturalism. Political correctness. Ecumenism. Etc. It's always very selective, just so long as 'the other', however abused, taken out of context, might promote the agenda of those hateful libs who confess cross-culturalism, political correctness, ecumenism, etc. It's never the reasonable view, the full view, the compassionate view, the genuine and balanced truth of those used in such comparison. It's always a selected case here, a host of ignored examples there, and so on. To present the complete picture would only be to show that such is NOT the example, generally, that those on the far trailing edge of Christendom would condone. And PC would fail.

He absolutely gets it.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - LAW - Worldview

[davidosborne]

PASSING IT ON>.. A RARE APPEARANCE BY JUSTICE SCALIA...

Dont know how long c-span will host the video.. but here it is... Click here for.REAL PLAYER STREAM...

Justices Scalia & Breyer Discussion on Foreign Courts' Impact Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer discuss "Whether Foreign Court Decisions Should Impact American Constitution Law."

The event is co-sponsored by American University Washington College of Law and the U.S. Association of Constitutional Law. The moderator is Professor Norman Dorsen of the NYU School of Law, the founding president of the U.S. Association of Constitutional Law. 1/13/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 40 min.: C-SPAN

[Noachian]

"You can learn something" from foreign countries,

The whole point is the Founding Fathers DID learn something from the foreign countries they came from, and wrote a Constitution for Americans that was better than anything European.

Now we have elitist justices telling us that we should return to the European Socialist rule of law.

If anything the Socialist Europeans could learn a lot from the American Constitutional system.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[KoRn]

"You can learn something" from foreign countries, adding that it is a matter of "opening your eyes to things that are going on elsewhere."

That statement is grounds for Impeachment and removal from the bench.

[ppaul]

Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.

This reprobate judge puts cornholing on-par with decent, intimate relations between a man and wife just because "other nations do." Yeah. Like France. Sick.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Freedom4US]

It's ironic isn't it? The "elites" are quick to point out that the Great Unwashed are in no position to interpret the constituion and bill of rights, precisely BECAUSE any damn fool knows in reality that they were written in plain English - this will never do, they reserve for themselves to tell us what they "really" meant. "The Federalist" is a good start, along with Jefferson's copious correspondence, etc. The shabby little secret that's never stated - modern "liberals" aren't, most, if not all, Democrats aren't democratic.

Undermining a representative democracy - a Republic - takes time and they are doing a bang up job of it. Incrementalism, activism and a sophist judiciary; a dumbed down populace is a big part of the program.

[Quix]

Billdo Dillbo's hideous attacks on our nation and way of life continue past his . . . . Oval Office blow outs.

[RedEyeJack]

A Krytocracy is a government ruled by judges.

Justice Breyer's arguments indicate the that he views the courts as a Krytocracy. It has become a way for those who cannot rule under the constitution of a representative democracy, where the will of the people in their various representative assemblies is the source of law, to exercise political, social, and economic power.

The constitution calls for the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges in order to prevent them from being subject to political influenced WITH THE UNDERSTANDING that they INTERPERT THE LAW not make it. What Breyer and his ilk fail to realize is that as they continue down this path the people are not helpless and that as they become more arrogant of their political power the people still have the means of asserting their will. Do not be surprised if a justice is impeached for this reason before the end of the decade.

[StonyBurk]

companion to the Federalist Papers-I must include Debate on the Constitution,Bernard Bailyn,editor; A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States,by Joseph Story(Regnery 1997 from the 1859 original);and
David Bartons'Original Intent.(not to leave out Jeffersons'
Writings, Merrill D.Peterson,editor) the more I learn about
the Constitution and the men who wrote and ratified it --the more convincingproof I see that the Left,post FDR do not represent that same system nor fundamental truths that
were established 1730-1805 and maintained until we allowed the Soviet Communists and the Ku Klux Klan build their damned destructive Wall of Separation.

[I got the rope]

BTTT

[Ravenstar]

I know that this is probably going to get me flamed but the 6 Supreme Court justices that made the Lawrence vs. Texas decision citing European Law, not the historical type i.e. Magna Carta etc., are subject to impeachment, though I know it wont happen because Republicans in Congress seem to go through a spine removal process before they are allowed to take their first vote. What part of their oath of Office do the Supreme Court justices not understand. When they sited European Law for that decision they violated their oath of office and are therefore subject to removal.

Ravenstar