Only through amendment. It's time for O'Connor to retire and let someone who understands history and has a brain take over.
She says, "Much ado about nothing", but also says that the Constitution is an evolving thing? I DON'T THINK SO--
If there is no controlling precedent then "of course we look to foreign law", sooooooo, we let foreigners set our precedents?
Wasn't ROE v. WADE precedent setting? Which countries' law did they use for THAT! Or is that just another "evolving" part of the Constitution you are changing?!
If they have a way of working out a problem then Congress can look into it. The courts are to follow laws passed in this country. The fact that Supreme Court Justices cannot see this is rather scary.
So the Constitution, U.S. statute laws and centuries of Common Law just don't provide enough of a framework. What are we paying these people for?
For your -- consideration.
I think Scalia is right and O'Connor much too sanguine. It is one thing to compare how other countries have dealt with issues. It is another thing to give their legislative enactments any weight whatsoever. The courts are not legislators and cannot simply impose foreign legislation because the prefer it. The real issue, however, is that Constitutional jurisprudence is utterly elastic and will justify almost any kind of legislation that the court wants to impose upon the country. The Supreme Court has become a political legislator, not a good faith interpreter of the Constitution, and should be humbler about overturning the expressed will of the legislator without a clear and direct Constitutional mandate to do so.
If there is no U.S. law, precedent or viewpoint, then there is no case.
I wonder if she buys models of the remnants of Partial Birth Abortion for her grand children to play with?
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?
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.
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.
I think these changes should be formally introduced as a proposed amendment. Let's get the ball rolling!