I heard the replay of Breyer's comments on Bennett this morning. It made my skin crawl. He specifically argued that the Constitution is fluid; that "law" has been, is, and should be made by a great and messy "conversation between judges, law school professors and lawyers." Not caselaw, not interpretive law-- "LAW"-- about our most basic societal moral judgments. And foreign law is part of that "conversation."
Think about that. And think about the arrogance behind that view.
Don't mistake the message, folks-- Liberals want nothing less than to change our fundamental form of government. They want to subvert the FF's model from one in which the people make law through their elected officials, to a partenalistic regime of non-responsive elites.
If that's not un-American, what is?
A lady asked a good question that sent Breyer on the defensive. She said: [paraphrasing]
When our soldiers and our President swear allegiance to the US Constitution, how can they know to what they are swearing allegiance, since you keep changing the Constitution with your rulings?
Another reason why we dont give in to homosexuals desire to have marriage. This is the slippery slope whos to say that beastiality, pedophilia or murder is wrong in the future. Without the constitution as a guiding and unchanging document for the basis of our laws and societal structure then EVERYTHING is open to change. Dont believe it then? Who would of guessed a hundred years ago that the murder of a 9mos baby inside the the mothers womb or homosexual right to be married would become law.
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
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.