Posted on 03/01/2005 8:49:19 AM PST by crushkerry
the US Supreme Court of Europe, gasp!
Do We, The People, have any recourse when and if it becomes apparent that the SCOTUS has made this nation and it's citizens accountable to an international court?
Short of revolution, that is.
Or do we have to sit by and watch the Senate GOP play nice so the Senate can conduct their own business at the expense of ours?
"Yet at least from the time of the Court’s decision in Trop, the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.”"
What year is the Trop case that he is referring to? Anyone know? What was the precedent set?
I tend to agree. The majority isn't claiming they are bound by international law or trends, but rather, is generally discussing the laws and trends in other countries as they relate to criminal justice under the 8th Amendment. That's not much different than looking to the Magna Carta, Common Law of England, or even the Bible for perspective. Now if the SCOTUS claims it is bound to construe the Constitution based upon international laws and trends, then I have a real problem.
The Court would just find the Exceptions and Regulations to be unconstitutional. Only a Constitutional amendment can overrule them. That and the exercise of the second amendment, but I don't think we are quite there.....yet.
Constitutional change is needed to reign in the Courts. Probably remove the lifetime appointment clause for Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges. I'd have them appointed, with advice and consent, but then make them stand election for "continuance", as is done in at least one state.
It's easy for people to get excited about one passage taken out of context of a 25 page decision, I guess.
I know there is a pony in here somewhere...
"...and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."
They are a CLOSED debate of nine souls on matters of utmost importance and urgency that affect 280 million citizens, a closed debate society whose decisions typically bind those 280 million citizens not for mere months or even years, but for generations.
But this is not the first time that a majority of this Court has savaged the Constitution. Such a case last year is why I resigned my 32-year membership in the Bar of the Court last July. Click here for, "To the Supreme Court: I Quit!"
I quoted the Justices' oath of office in that article. Readers can determine for themselves whether Justice Kennedy and his four colleagues who voted for this decision, violated their oath of office. Congressman Billybob
They don't use international law to interpret our Constitution, they use international law to OVERRIDE it! God, this makes me SO MAD!
In 1958, the Supreme Court had decided in
Trop v. Dulles (356 U.S. 86), that the Eighth Amendment contained an "evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society." Although Trop was not a death penalty case, abolitionists applied the Court's logic to executions and maintained that the United States had, in fact, progressed to a point that its "standard of decency" should no longer tolerate the death penalty.
By wide-ranging, I mean that the text of their opinions cover a lot of ground. Laymen shouldn't be surprised when opinions include details like this. In law school, I've seen opinions that include quotes from Broadway musicals.
It's all dicta. It is not the relevant part of the decision. SCOTUS Justices are not known for their brevity.
Supreme Court Justices (Judicial Branch)
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
That's what scares me the most... it doesn't seem to matter who we elect any more. We are on our own.
The court ... claims halfheartedly that a national consensus has emerged since our decision in Stanford, because 18 states - or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment - now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18, and because all of four states have adopted such legislation since Stanford. Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus.
Yeah, we've got the courage, but let's go to Seattle this time and toss their coffee into Puget Sound...
As opposed to their hubris and elitism, for which these unelected lawyers are renowned.
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.