Posted on 04/22/2005 4:26:33 AM PDT by MisterRepublican
WASHINGTON - 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
She should be immediately impeached for her views on this.
Sadly, she won't be.
Didnt Scalia recently say the Constitution was not a living document? I guess he and Sandra Day dont exactly see eye to eye on that one. How old is she anyway?
Exqueeze me?!
Clarity shouldn't be a huge problem. What the SCOTUS is supposed to look at when deciding the legitimacy of an issue is whether it is addressed anywhere in the Constitution. If so, apply that Article or Amendment to the issue; otherwise, so state and deal with it.
How people in France, Germany, Zimbabwe, or any other damned country anywhere on the planet feel is completely immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant.
Is this woman becoming senile?
I just hit the roof! THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS USING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES. Ok, screaming off.
I want her out of there today! It is that attitude, legislating from the bench that is going to be the downfall of our nation. She is way over the boundries and in fact threatens the entire court system with being dismantled by the people.
And liberals wonder why AMERICANS are getting increasingly disgusted with these "living, breathing Constitution" judges. This poor excuse for a judge needs to be removed from her position immediately, along with anyone else who sees nothing wrong with using laws from other countries as a guide in their decisions.
"This is much ado about nothing,"
So, now a great majority of the country rightfully criticizing you and other judges like you blatantly subverting the Constitution you swore an oath to uphold and defend is just 'much ado about nothing'? It makes me wonder what we are doing overseas when we have so many budding arrogant, elitist tyrants at home.
If the Constitution is considered a "Living Document" then the liberals are treating it like Terry Schiavo.
The Supreme Court has occasionally referenced international sources in their decisions for most of the last 215 years.
My mother used to have a saying,
If Johnny jumps off a bridge, are you going to too?
If France jumps off the freedom bridge, are you going to too?
Madam Justice ... you are dismissed!
Do agree, While we slept the gang in black have installed
themselves as gods.If the Constitution they see is one
of evolutionary change- then it is NOT the Constitution
drafted 1789-1791. And if the Supreme Law of the land means
only what the high priests of the cult of law say it does
then they-not the Constitution is supreme law. IF there is no standard of language and intent of the men who drafted the document yet recognized then WHY do we have a Court of
last resort? I intend to live until the evolutional idiots
are as the missing links in Darwinian theory.
That was the line that struck me as incredibly stupid by someone who should be a defender of the Constitution.
The people have the tool of impeachment, initiated by the House and tried by the Senate. It is an underused check on judicial usurpation of legislative prerogative. The problem lies, I think, with Congress first. And "we the people" who elect them.
Her own words make a clear case for impeachment.
EX-CUSE ME?!? The Constitution evolves?!? Bravo Sierra!
The Constitution is not a "living document" which can be interpreted within the context of modern society. The Constitution is the set of rules by which our Nation is governed. Rules, not guidelines. No do-overs, mulligans, reading between the lines or "it seems like a good idea". Hard, fast rules.
The Framers recognized, however, that the Constitution may need changes depending on whether a particular concept worked changing conditions. Indeed, that's why they established the Constitutional amendment process.
"But it's so hard to pass an amendment, we should just write a law." Of course it's hard, you bunch of lame-brain idiots, the Framers wrote it that way! They went out of their way to make sure that the People really had to make an concerted effort to change the rulebook. If the change isn't important enough to go through all the procedural wickets (2/3rd vote, approved by the States), then it's not important enough to change the bloody Constitution! [Even then, approved amendments may still be a bad idea (i.e. Prohibition), but the People can choose to rescind the change.]
Sorry, I know this is a rant, but to paraphrase Puck, "What fools these judges be."
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.