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,
I don't believe I disagree with any on this thread wrt the malignity of the decisions of the Court but I do not agree that it has BASED any of those decisions on Foreign law which is, as I mentioned earlier, completely inconsistent within itself and nothing real. Nor have I seen any decisions based upon treaties which have not been properly ratified. If you could point me towards some I would appreciate it.
As I understand the Seperation of Powers arguments used to justify ratification the Judicial branch was to be completely independent of both the executive and the legislative branches. It was intended to be ABOVE politics and thus above political criticism hence the life time appointment during "good behavior." And to be a check on prospective Executive and Legislative tyranny.
Now since it has become obvious that this is also a highly political branch but surreptitously so there is a good argument that it face political consequences for its decisions. But this is a very dangerous prospect and entry into it must be very carefully thought out. I don't see that here but rather a lot of exaggeration and distortion. ( I am not saying that of you.)