Supreme Idiocy: The Constitution Does Not Consist of World Public Opinion

The Richmond [VA] Times-Dispatch ^ | March 4, 2005 | A. Barton Hinkle

[quidnunc]

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." – Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority in Roper v. Simmons. Tommyrot.

Put aside for the moment the issue of whether the juvenile death penalty is constitutional; intelligent people should be able to distinguish between the results of a ruling, which they might like, and the reasoning behind it — which in this case they should not. Kennedy's suggestion is profoundly disturbing for revealing his willingness to — well, to put aside the issue of whether the juvenile death penalty is constitutional, and to substitute what he thinks the rest of the world thinks for what the Constitution and precedent actually say. His comment constitutes, if one may use that word, a profound betrayal of his position.

Kennedy is not the first to suggest the Supremes look abroad for guidance on how to decide questions of American jurisprudence. Two years ago Sandra Day O'Connor (who dissented, for different reasons, in Roper) spoke to the Southern Center for International Studies, where she said basing the Court's decisions on international law will make a good impression abroad. It's comforting to know she cares how the Court is viewed by the likes of Sudan, North Korea, and Islamic Jihad. It is not comforting to know she thinks their opinions should weigh on her own ratiocination in cases she hears.

There are two principal problems with the Kennedy-O'Connor view — one contingent, the other immutable.

The contingent problem arises from the laughability of looking to foreign countries — let alone states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Nigeria — to determine what America's "evolving standard of decency" requires. It makes about as much sense as looking at poll results from Nashville…

-snip-

[MikefromOhio]

Wait a second here. We care about people who rape 12 year old girls in the Congo (UN) and people that dont give a flip about human rights (Iran and Syria) and all the rest in OUR own court opinions?

To hell with the rest of the world.

[JennysCool]

I think we know what the poll results from Nashville would say.

[Prince Caspian]

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."

George Washington

[farmer18th]

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." --Justice Kennedy.

Wasn't this a Republican appointment? How can we put such bald-faced idiots on the bench?

[muawiyah]

Kennedy has this personal fear of receiving the death penalty ~ eventually.

Don't pay any attention to him on the issue. Nobody else does.

[laweeks]

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty."

Kennedy should immediately be removed from the court. No questions asked. The Supreme Court was ruling like this last term by taking into account European laws, and NO ONE in government called them on it. Kennedy and these other Euro-Jurists should be impeached and removed quickly. What an awful precedent to establish.

[Aetius]

Does this concern for public opinion mean that when the matter of gay marriage/civil unions reaches the high court that they will take note of the 40+ states with either legislation or state amendments which make law the recognition of only the marriage of one man with one woman?

[mvpel]

Wasn't this a Republican appointment? How can we put such bald-faced idiots on the bench?

Which is exactly why some argue that we have more to lose than gain by eliminating the filibuster in judicial nominations.

[Prince Caspian]

If I was Frist, I would force the Dems to conduct a REAL filibuster before I considered the "nuclear option".

[paudio]

Is there anything in the constitution that allows a review over SCOTUS decision and overturn it?

[Diogenesis]

They took an Oath to defend the Constitution,
but instead sold out the Constitution, like whores, to the UN and EU.

[dufekin]

Unfortunately, we cut the punch line from the sentence. Here goes:

"It makes about as much sense as looking at poll results from Nashville to decide what people in Berkeley think."

[shezza]

How can we put keep such bald-faced idiots on the bench?

Congress, cleanup needed on Aisle 9!

[Conservative Goddess]

Amen.

We must awaken the legal profession from their collective stupor. My Constitutional Law casebook(Stone, Seidman, Sunstein and Tushnet)included the following in the preface:

"This edition retains its predecessors' emphasis on constitutional theory, interdisciplinary and empirical studies, and comparative constitutional law. The overall presentation has, however, been updated and changed. Developments in constitutional law outside the Supreme Court led to the inclusion of a greatly expanded treatment of impeachment, for example. [Thank You Slick Willie] We have continued to increase the number of references to constitutional law in other nations, with the thought that American constitutional law remains far too insular....."

I learned nothing from this class because I just couldn't stomach the liberal bias. We've got to cut this thinking off at the source.....the law schools....and the aging geldings who currently inhabit the stable of professors need to have their "minds made right" or they've got to be lead out to pasture....a place where their only tangible work product....fertilizer..... will be useful.

Ping to GeneralHavoc and Badray

[Bogtrotter52]

It does not matter WHO appoints them. Once they put on the robes they develop delusions of granduer.....Gently guiding the great unwashed (Us of course).

[PzLdr]

The Constitution didn't give SCOTUS the power of judicial review. John Marshall did, in MARBURY v. MARYLAND. Congress then did nothing to stop it.However, there's nothing says Congress has to allocate money for SCOTUS to operate-although the House doesn't have the cajones to pull the plug on them.

[PGalt]

If the majority could have intervened when the INNOCENT VICTIM was getting SLAUGHTERED their pompous asses would have probably said, "you are going to remain silent now" (after they got done pissing on him).

[PzLdr]

Oops! That's MARBURY v. MADISON. Sorry! Long day.