Posted on 04/21/2005 7:58:06 PM PDT by kingattax
WASHINGTON (AP) - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on Thursday dismissed growing criticism about the Supreme Court's use of international law in its opinions, saying it makes sense for justices to look at foreign sources when a point of law is unclear.
O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, participated in a lively one-hour discussion at the National Archives with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer. She said if there is no controlling U.S. precedent or the viewpoint of states is unsettled, "of course we look at foreign law."
"This is much ado about nothing," she said in response to a question by moderator Tim Russert of NBC. "Our Constitution is one that evolves. What's the best way to know? State legislatures - but it doesn't hurt to know what other countries are doing."
O'Connor's comments come amid a growing divide on the court over the citation of international opinion to support decisions interpreting the Constitution. Last month, justices ruled 5-4 to outlaw the death penalty for juvenile killers, citing in part international sentiment against it.
O'Connor, who dissented in that ruling, wrote in a separate opinion that international law was relevant but in that case wasn't strong enough to justify striking down the practice since many state legislatures still allowed it.
Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay singled out Justice Anthony Kennedy's work as "incredibly outrageous" and "activist," citing his majority opinion in the death penalty case in particular because the Reagan appointee uses international law and "does his own research on the Internet."
Three of the justices - Scalia, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas - have said foreign law has no relevance. Scalia has been increasingly critical of the practice in recent months, pointing to decisions in recent years to decriminalize gay sex and ban the execution of the mentally retarded.
"I don't agree it's much ado about nothing," Scalia said in response to O'Connor. Regarding the death penalty case, he said the majority led by Kennedy "contradicted the view of the majority of the states."
"I don't see how international law is relevant. I don't know what a South Africa court will tell you about American law," he said.
Breyer countered: "It's appropriate in some instances to look at other places. It's not binding by any means. But if they have a way of working out a problem that's relevant to us, it's worth reading."
During the panel discussion, the three justices also said their typical work day consists mostly of reading - "on average 1,500 pages a day," according to O'Connor - and some writing.
In response to questions, the justices said they never horse-trade for votes, although at times they might seek a unanimous vote if possible in a particularly controversial case.
O'Connor, Scalia and Breyer also said they opposed live television coverage of their oral arguments, which are open to the public and available on audiotape several days afterward. They said sound bites could misrepresent the proceedings.
"For every one person who watches gavel to gavel to understand what's going on, 10,000 will see takeouts on network news I guarantee will be misinterpreted," Scalia said.
Breyer said the court prefers to avoid making a dramatic change that might prove to have unintended consequences, such as a distortion of the court's work.
"First go with the audio, and be very cautious. I think that would be my point of view," he said.
This man is dangerous to the very sovereignty of this nation. How dare he look at European law or any other laws outside of this nation. These Liberals do not even understand the Rule of Law. We had a Revolution and won the "War of Independence;" therefore, we are certainly not subject to European Laws or any other countries laws. If he is bored with our Constitution and Rule of Law then maybe he should resign now.
Yeah, it kinda sticks out like those people now that are upset that the new Pope believes in the Bible and isn't interested in "evolving"it into a abortion-loving, gay-loving, cloning-loving endtable book!!!
Better than daddy Bushes appointment of David Souter!
INTREP - Judicial Tyranny
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy, the rule of few over many.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Did you know that only 14% of the population may not have been taught what 86% of the population has forgotten? Maybe that 14% needs a history lesson. Ya think?
"Only through amendment. It's time for O'Connor to retire and let someone who understands history and has a brain take over."
I second that motion.
America does not need Justices sitting on our Supreme Court, who are so incompentent, they feel a need to base their decisions on opinions of foreigners, rather than our own Constitution.
It's much ado alright, but not about nothing-it is much ado about the bovine doo doo being brought into that Court, that has it smelling like a stable.
The triumph of moral relativism and the pernicious doctrine of judicial supremecy.
Checks and balances and co-equal branches of government are a quaint memory to these people.
Unfortunately, we have a Chief Executive who has proven himself to be lacking the understanding or the courage to check them, and a legislative branch that is too busy feathering their own nest and spending us into oblivion to care.
One of the saddest results? Death sentences against innocent American citizens carried out by cruel and unusual means, in direct contradiction to the Constitution's guarantees.
Under today's 'leadership', things aren't 'evolving', they are devolving...
No Justice O'Connor, our Constitution does not evolve, it is amended.
She needs to be impeached and removed from office.
If only the Founding Fathers had been wise enough to put some kind of provision in the Bill of Rights to indicate that ALL items not addressed by the Constitution were to be handled by the individual states. That would have solve lots of problems.....
They did. Did you forget to include a sarcasm tag?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I believe this is a flat-out lie. At their age these people simply don't have the physical or mental stamina to read 1,500 pages a day.
If ever there was a clearer indication of a Supreme Court justice's lack of good behavior on the bench this line by O'Connor is it.
By her own admission she is willing to add foreign law to American constitutional law in violation of the separation of powers that only give the Legislature the power to make laws.
This mindset has nothing to do with the rule of law, which judges so frequently quote when their rulings are questioned, but rather it has to do with a single justices' political agenda.
This is all about being liked by her 17-year-old French pool boy et al. People like O'Connor could care less about the U.S. and only want to be well received on the cocktail party circuit.
We should look to foreign law to see how, say, the Arabs, deal with treachery.
A jury did that and a judge threw out the case.
.......or a Superman comic book
How about that, Sandy, you habeas dipstickus ?
what an EXCELLENT point !
theres another winner.......souter makes barney fife look like a legal giant
Impeach the bitch.
L
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.