Perhaps some definitions would help you understand. "Consider" means "examine or to study to take into account or to think carefully" "base" means "foundation, the fundamental ingredient, premise, basis, ground" Has it escaped you that these definitions are NOT the same?
And NO I do not believe any on the Court is basing decisions on European law or Nigerian either. There is no need for them to do so. In the Death Penalty issue there are states within the USA which do not allow underage killers to be put to death. Why would a Justice need to support their agreement on any law from across the pond?
To claim these decisions are based upon other countries laws is a wild exaggeration.
My you are a condesending sort, aren't you?
You may mince words and protest until you are blue in the face.
The fact remains there are Supreme Court Justices that are making decisions based on Europian thought, and they have stated as much, publicly.
The fact remains that there are Supreme Court Justices that realize this fact, and have stated such, publicly.
I, for one, are tired of you, and your excuse making and shall not entertain you any longer, on this issue.
Now mince this!
RE: your 175: It is the Court, not its critics, that supports its decisions to invalidate laws in many states of the US by reference to foreign law. It has done so repeatedly. If foreign law doesn't support and influence their decision, why do they cite it? They do it to support a decision that cannot otherwise be supported sufficiently within American law. We the people have no influence whatsoever over foreign law, and it is being cited by unelected lifetime appointees to invalidate laws enacted by our legislatures.
The Federalist papers quoted above make plain that the power to impeach judges is intended as check on their abuse of their power. Article 5 clearly makes judicial decisions subject to the limits of the constitution. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. While judicial review confers the authority to interpret the constitution, it is not a warrant to rewrite, ignore or destroy it. Judicial immunity does not repeal the constitutional limitations on their power or their duties under their oath of office. If the power of judicial impeachment is not meant as a check on runaway or rogue judicial acts, then what the heck is it for? To enforce the law on loitering? Your argument would reduce the power to impeach judges, which is in there for a reason, to mere surplusage, contrary to the rules of construction.
If it was a constitutional crisis for Nixon to defy a subpoena, why is it any less a constitutional crisis for a Court to give force to treaties which were not ratified in the manner prescribed by the Constitution? Do 5 judges really have the power under judicial review to give force to treaties rejected by the executive and the legislative branches under their grants of authority over foreign policy under Articles II and I? Of course they don't. But they did it anyway, because the traditional normative constraints on their power, such as the plain text of the constitution, have been crushed beneath their blind ambition, arrogance and pride.
Using their methodology, they could impose the Kyoto protocols upon us as a matter of judicial fiat even though the Senate rejected it 97-0. Don't laugh. It could happen.
My main point is this: there is a line. In a system of laws there has to be a line. I hope we can agree at least on this. You may disagree on whether they have crossed it, but I for one feel strongly they have.
Regards,