Posted on 04/02/2005 3:58:14 AM PST by Pharmboy
WASHINGTON, April 1 - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions on Friday, rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.
After a strongly worded dissent in a juvenile death penalty case from Justice Antonin Scalia last month that accused the court of putting too much faith in international opinion, Justice Ginsberg said the United States system should, if anything, consider international law more often.
"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary," she said in a speech to several hundred lawyers and scholars here Friday.
She cited several instances when the logic of foreign courts had been applied to help untangle legal questions domestically, and of legislatures and courts abroad adopting United States law.
Fears about relying too heavily on world opinion "should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey," Justice Ginsburg told members of the American Society of International Law.
On March 1, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution forbids executing convicts who committed their crimes before turning 18. The majority opinion reasoned that the United States was increasingly out of step with the world by allowing minors to be executed, saying "the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty."
Justice Scalia lambasted that logic, saying that "like-minded foreigners" should not be given a role in helping interpret the Constitution. House Republicans have introduced a resolution declaring that the "meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States."
In her speech, Justice Ginsberg criticized the resolutions in Congress and the spirit in which they were written. "Although I doubt the resolutions will pass this Congress, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support," she said.
"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Justice Ginsburg said.
"Even more so today, the United States is subject to the scrutiny of a candid world," she said. "What the United States does, for good or for ill, continues to be watched by the international community, in particular by organizations concerned with the advancement of the rule of law and respect for human dignity."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced Justice Ginsburg at the event, the first appearance by a sitting secretary of state before the 99-year-old organization in decades. Dr. Rice described Justice Ginsberg as "a great and good friend," adding that they also happened to be neighbors.
Bump!
This sort of thing, along with the some of the Bush family kisses blown towards the Clintons, and the appointment of La Raza Gonzales as AG are all signs - that maybe we shouldn't expect too much regarding any Bush SCOTUS pick.
If Justice Kennedy sold out, it goes without saying that Ginsberg was even further to the left on this issue.
So where do we meet? You know to get sized for knickers?
I cannot believe this!!! Foreign law??????????Sheesh!!!! I tell you , I am beginning to wonder WHO we can trust any more!!!
Great point.
Then she should resign and join the ICC at the Hague.
I mind not a whit if the House looks at how Peru handles their social security-like system.
Y'know, it would be great to have actors dress up as The Founders and stand in front of Congress quoting from themselves.
Let them circle. It's time to open fire, with the impeachment cannons.
Thanks. I was really surprised when I heard that Justice Scalia made the same point in a debate. Maybe shocked would be a better word.
In my case, saying that I came up with the same idea as Justice Scalia would be like saying, "Every now and then a blind hog will find an acorn!" It goes without saying that I'm the blind hog.
Mark
Some serious thought needs to go into possible legal avenues to
have the hag of the ACLU removed from the bench.
=======
Oh yeah? And just how do you propose we accomplish said removal?
Ginsburg will remain on the bench till she dies (hint hint) !!! ;-))
Nice try BUT my bet is every one of those quotes were of the Blackstone ideas that were incorporated by our founding fathers into the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and not those that would change it. Blackstone wrote "The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong". Do you think we could/should reinterpret the Constitution to bring back a monarchy?
This is another reason too be highly suspicious of Rice. I mean, it could be that she's just being nice, but its frightening to think of the type of judges Rice would nominate if she were ever elected.
But anyway, Ginsberg is a far-left extremist, and the GOP senate should have voted her down, in the full senate, when she was nominated. I believe she was on record before her nomination as saying she considered traditional marriage laws to be 'unconstitutional', yet the GOP apparently took no notice of it.
Its just more proof that the Democrats are better at picking judges than the GOP. By that I mean that while the GOP often screws up and picks bad judges, the Democrats never screw up and pick good ones. They are perfect in their ability to pick horrible judges. They never fail to do so.
Its why relying on Bush making good judicial nominations simply isn't enough to protect against judicial activism. The other two, supposedly co-equal branches have to stand up to the Courts if their usurpation of power is to ever be checked and pushed back.
Senility reigns in a black robe.
Or maybe they're just STUPID.
Maybe she wasn't listening. Or maybe she's too stupid to understand the oath.
Of course that argues to your point doesn't it.
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.