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.
Question is, does Condi agree with this?
Of course! And not merely the judicial branch of government!
The United States system should also consider the wishes of the international community by letting everyone in the world have a vote in U.S. elections--federal, state, local, et al.
And furthermore! The executive branch! Why should we not take advantage of such international luminaries as...say...Kofi Annan or Osama bin Laden or Jacques Chirac or Kim Jon-Il and allow the people of the world to elect them to the U.S. presidency?
(You know. The more you hear from Leftist morons like Ginsberg the more you shake your head and wonder how the human race has managed as well as it has.)
Hey! Here's a good idea, Ruth! Let's let the United Nations interpret the Constitution for us!
What am I saying? This nitwit will think it's a great idea!
Hmmm...very innaresting. I thought Perot had problems with them thar Jews. But, I guess not as tax lawyers.
I couldn't begin to estimate the number of Supreme Court decisions which included quotes from the writings of Sir William Blackstone in their decisions. I suppose Justice Scalia would be ripping apart Chief Justice Marshall for that as well.
I WANT MY CONSTITUTION BACK! Without it we've got nothing by tyranny by the judiciary. Their being limited by the Constitution is required for any balance of powers; ohterwise, they can decide anything and are defined as dectators. Any judge, on any level, who makes a decision based on Anything except our Constituion is violating our law and MUST BE IMPEACHED!!
She should be impeached, for abuse of powers; the highest crime a judge can commit, is to operate outside the authority of the Constitution, and she has confessed to doing just that.; all federal agents, and that includes all federal judges, have only the powers authorized to them, and that does not include such consultations of foreign commentaries as she has described. Not to mention, that she is operating in violation of her oath.
And in the Roper v Simmons decision, the court referenced the "Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales" so it's OK, right? Being from the Mother Country and all?
She must be removed..
Isn't there a very pointed FOREIGN obolisque somewhere that we could perch her putootie on with some cray glue somewhere as a particularly patriotic performance?
"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.
No constructionist she.
We knew this of course, but it's always good to get it
from the horse's mouth.
And, there's plenty of awful decisions made by the Supremes and lower courts without the help of ex-US courts. There are many issues upon which we must take back the courts and the country.
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
She should be impeached.
I think there is more to what you say than anyone knows.
The Klintonistas were the most incestuous band of hoodlums ever to cross the political stage. And Ginsberg is just one of them.
A view, of course, which is held by no one.
Typical straw man.
The Constitution provides for its own amendment.
There was a C-span show on this last week with the head of the DC court of appeals also named Ginsberg. He was stating quite clearly that there is no body of International Law to consult with any clarity. It's only the prevailing sentiment of the international community as divined be the person hoping to find a rationale for their position. It was quite a show.
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.