[Jim Noble]

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives

No, No, NO!!!

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Cout is subject to such regulations as Congress shall make, Art III, s2.

A sense of the House resolution is a spineless copout, and I wouldn't spend a dime or five minutes of my time promoting it.

Congress should not "express its sense", Congress should FORBID, by statute in the form of an Article III regulation, ANY use of ANY foreign court or parliamentary opinion in any adjudication before ANY US Court.

Nothing less will suffice.

[Les_Miserables]

A sense of the House resolution is a spineless copout, and I wouldn't spend a dime or five minutes of my time promoting it. Congress should not "express its sense", Congress should FORBID, by statute in the form of an Article III regulation, ANY use of ANY foreign court or parliamentary opinion in any adjudication before ANY US Court. Nothing less will suffice..

Yep exactly right. They are just posturing to make us think they are doing something. What disingenuous crap.

[ChicagoHebrew]

Congress should FORBID, by statute in the form of an Article III regulation, ANY use of ANY foreign court or parliamentary opinion in any adjudication before ANY US Court.

That's much too broad. There are plenty of legitimate uses for foreign law -- the enforcement of foreign judgments, the interpretation of multinational contracts, etc. I'd even go so far as to say that it's clearly relevant in the interpretation of multilateral treaties signed and executed by the US. Where foreign law should NOT be used is to interpret domestic constitutions (state of US), laws and regulations.