Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?
Eagle Forum ^ | March 16, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 03/16/2005 11:19:13 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe

"By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation?" So asked an incredulous Justice Antonin Scalia in response to the latest outrage by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Five activist justices (not even nine) just imposed their personal social preference on every American voter, state legislator, congressman, and juror. Adding insult to injury, the supremacist five used foreign laws, "international opinion," and even an unratified treaty to rationalize overturning more than 200 years of American law and history.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons is a prime example of liberal judges changing our Constitution based on their judge-invented notion that its meaning is "evolving." He presumed to rewrite the Eighth Amendment.

The murder involved in this case was particularly heinous. Christopher Simmons persuaded a fellow teenager to help him commit a brutal murder after assuring him they could "get away with it" because they were both under age eighteen.

Simmons met his pal at 2 a.m. and they broke into Shirley Crook's home as she slept. Simmons and his fellow teenager bound her hands, covered her eyes with duct tape, put her in her own minivan, and drove to a state park.

There they hog-tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her entire face in duct tape, and threw her body from a railroad trestle into the Meramec River. Mrs. Crook drowned helplessly, and her body was found later by fishermen.

Showing no remorse, Simmons bragged about his killing to his friends, declaring that he did it "because the bitch seen my face." He confessed quickly after his arrest and even agreed to reenact the crime on video.

A jury of his peers listened to his attorney's argument that youthful indiscretion should mitigate punishment; the jury observed Simmons' demeanor at trial and heard from a slew of witnesses. After an exhaustive trial and full consideration of age as a factor, the jury and judge imposed the death sentence as allowed by Missouri law.

The American system allows a jury to recommend life-or-death following due process and the applicable law enacted by the representatives of the people of the state. Nothing in the text or history of the Eighth Amendment denies Missouri juries and state legislatures the right to make this decision.

The Supreme Court's main argument was the "trend" since 1989 that seven countries (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo, and China) have banned juvenile capital punishment. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter changed U.S. law so we can follow the lead of those seven countries.

Only four U.S. states have legislated against the juvenile death penalty since 1989 (but none of them was executing juveniles anyway). On the other hand, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia all allow the death penalty for a seventeen-year-old who commits a particularly shocking murder.

The supremacist five claimed that most other countries don't execute seventeen-year-olds. However, most other countries don't have capital punishment at all, so there is no distinction between seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds.

Furthermore, most other countries don't allow jury trials or other Bill of Rights guarantees, so who knows if the accused ever gets what we would call a fair trial? Over 90 percent of jury trials are in the United States, and we certainly don't want to conform to non-jury-trial countries.

The supremacist five must think they can dictate evolution of the meaning of treaties as well as of the text of the Constitution.

They cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which our Senate year after year has refused to ratify. They also cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which we ratified only with a reservation specifically excluding the matter of juvenile capital punishment.

DC sniper Lee Malvo was seventeen during his infamous killing rampage, so now serial killers like him won't have to worry about the death penalty. The terrorists and the vicious Salvadoran gangs will be able to assign seventeen-year-olds as their hit men so they can "get away with it."

We recall that the Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 that it could not overturnRoe v. Wade because that might undermine "the Court's legitimacy." But in the Simmons case, the Court flatly overturned its own decision about juvenile capital punishment in Stanford v. Kentucky only 16 years ago.

As Justice Scalia pointed out in dissent, the Court's invocation of foreign law is both contrived and disingenuous. The big majority of countries reject U.S.-style abortion on demand, so the supremacist justices conveniently omitted that "international opinion."

Our runaway judiciary is badly in need of restraint by Congress. A good place to start would be a law declaring it an impeachable offense for justices to rely on foreign law in overriding the U.S. Constitution or congressional or state law.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: court; getarope; globalism; judges; justices; ropervsimmons; schlafly; scotus; supreme; supremecourt; transjudicialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last
To: Steve Van Doorn
What you are missing is the difference between and among "the law", "judicial practice", and "legal principles".

You will notice that although our Founders looked to Roman Law (among others), laws passed by the Roman Senate and enforced by the Tribunes and Emperors ARE NOT law in the United States.

Up until recently we depended on Congress and the various state legislators to inform us of the state of American law.

Now, arch traitors like Justice Kennedy want us to bow down to foreign potentates and satraps.

It is time to remove the traitors and return to our own ancient traditions, and laws, and have our Congress and the legislatures debate and pass laws for our use.

101 posted on 03/16/2005 4:08:48 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No, because, once again, I actually read the decision.

I've read the decision and the dissents several times and because I have I know just how much balogna you are trying to pass off as roast beef.

And what everyone is ignoring the fact that in their ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that executing Simmons was cruel and unusual.

And what you're ignoring, or purposely withholding, is the fact that the Missouri court based it's holding on Atkins, you guessed it, another law made by SCOTUS while the Simmons case was being litigated.

How can the Supreme Court be accused of making laws when it is upholding a lower court ruling?

Not only is the SCOTUS making law, so did the Missouri Supreme Court. Missori legislatore, duly elected by the people of Missouri, had laws on their books. The Missori judges, using SCOTUS' erroneous reasoning in Atkins, found a way to negate those laws and then the same SCOTUS upheld the Missouri courts relaince on, you guessed it, SCOTUS.

Most states in this country (60%)have already determined that offenders under 18 should not be executed.

I'm pretty good with numbers so I can make them dance every bit as good as you. 37 states have the death penalty, that would be the sample we are working with. Of those, 18 states have the legislating against the death penalty for people under 18. But that means 19, a majority, do not have laws prohibitng same. IOW's, SCOTUS' claim that there is a consensus is a damn lie.

AS for the rest of your "analysis", states make all the laws you cited. That is the power assigned to them by the Constitution, as is who getss the death penalty.

102 posted on 03/16/2005 4:13:40 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

IMO, yes. It clearly violates their oath to uphold OUR Constitution and it's principles in favor of foreign principles.


BTTT
103 posted on 03/16/2005 4:16:14 PM PST by visualops
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I'm pretty good with numbers

But admittedly, a terrible typist.

104 posted on 03/16/2005 4:17:13 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
"...but that they inserted their own personal bias into the interpretation."

Every judge does that in every decision. As human beings, it's impossible not to.


I could not disagree with you more. The very purpose of a judge is to remain an impartial referee. You may argue that it is humanly impossible to purge all biases from yourself as you review law and procedure, but interpreting a law or procedure contrary to how it is written in order to suit your own agenda is an entirely different thing. For instance, if I were a state judge in a state where marijuana was illegal, regardless of my opinion that marijuana should be legal, I could not honestly set a dealer free because I have decided that marijuana shouldn't be illegal. If I do, I am no longer clarifying law, or even interpreting it; I am now dictating what the law is and ignoring the actual written law. That is the essence of what the justices are doing, with this case and others.
105 posted on 03/16/2005 4:32:52 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

It is impossible for a person to determine whether or not a punishment is "cruel and unusual" without that person relying on his "personal bias."


106 posted on 03/16/2005 4:42:23 PM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

great post. Yes, they should be impeached and "conservative" Republicans who can't see the judiciary is out of control are part of the problem.


107 posted on 03/16/2005 4:52:45 PM PST by Piers-the-Ploughman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The Missori judges, using SCOTUS' erroneous reasoning in Atkins, found a way to negate those laws and then the same SCOTUS upheld the Missouri courts relaince on, you guessed it, SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court decision was erroneous because you said it was. Well, glad we got that straightened out. </sarcasm>

108 posted on 03/16/2005 5:07:08 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The Supreme Court decision was erroneous because you said it was. Well, glad we got that straightened out.

Not just me but the three conservatives on the court and the one moderate. The lefties and the libertarian trending toward insanity all voted with you.

And BTW, sarcasm isn't an argument. I take it you've waived the white flag.

109 posted on 03/16/2005 5:15:07 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Torie

The Constitutional threads die a quick death these days. Maybe even quicker than SS. :-}


110 posted on 03/16/2005 6:17:02 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
On some of these judicial decision I can't really type up a post pointing out the competing arguments, which I often do on many issues. That is because they are just a raw abuse of judicial power, which as Scalia noted, will not only politicize as it has judicial nominations to the breaking point, but in time render the Constitution, not a sacred document respected by all protecting fundamental rights and due process, but about as useful as swiss cheese is as an impermeable barrier to moisture.

It irritates me when I am provoked to sound like a red meat right wing antagonist. But, well, facts are facts. One must call them as one sees them.

111 posted on 03/16/2005 6:22:44 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Torie

You're the man! Honest as the day is long.


112 posted on 03/16/2005 6:29:35 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Durus

That makes sense, I guess. I'll take your word for it. Perhapsd I was thinking of the "circuit" judges - I could swear that was William, but perhaps it was there with the Celts, I don't know.

I have a rule in my practice against representing ancient Celts, so how was I to know?


113 posted on 03/18/2005 6:16:37 AM PST by Bluegrass Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I read it. Did you read Scalia's dissent?


114 posted on 03/18/2005 6:17:25 AM PST by Bluegrass Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FutureSenatorFromKentucky
I read it. Did you read Scalia's dissent?

Yes, as well as O'Connor's.

115 posted on 03/18/2005 6:20:35 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No, because, once again, I actually read the decision. And what everyone is ignoring the fact that in their ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that executing Simmons was cruel and unusual. How can the Supreme Court be accused of making laws when it is upholding a lower court ruling? Most states in this country (60%)have already determined that offenders under 18 should not be executed. We hold those under 18 to a different standard from adults. They cannot vote, drink, serve on juries, enlist in the miltiary without parental approval, or get married in most states without approval. Yet Missouri used the same set of standards that they use to sentence adults to death to sentence those under 18. The court ruled that such a double standard did fall under the category of cruel and unusual. The court acknowledged that there were sure to be some criminals under 18 aware enough to warrant the death penalty, but the laws would have to be crafted to do a better job of identifying those criminals were the death penalty is truly justified. Current laws don't do that. All of which you would know had you or Ms. Schlafly read the decision.

You should read Scalia's dissent. First, the majority of states with the death penalty DO allow execution of minors. This is highly relevant to the legal standard (bogus though it is) in question, that of "evolving standards od decency" which is examined in reference to a "national consensus". How is a minority opinion equated to a national consensus? As for how it is that the Court is making law, I won't presume that I could articulate it better than Scalia. His dissent is marvelous.

116 posted on 03/18/2005 6:21:41 AM PST by Bluegrass Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Doesn't the justices to UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Contitution of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? sorry for screaming, that was for emphasis.


117 posted on 03/18/2005 6:37:32 AM PST by NCC-1701 (ISLAM IS A CULT, PURE AND SIMPLE!!!!! IT MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701

When people post me, I like internet shouting [perhaps not nonstop caps lock], especially when it's the Great Schlafly discussing impeachment of judges. Glad to see it. Passion and brains. Powerful combination.


118 posted on 03/18/2005 7:17:57 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (I hope my [hello?] watermarks aren't too [yaa-aah!] distracting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson