Posted on 08/11/2005 3:13:30 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
What's wrong with citing rulings by judges in other countries, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer asked attendees at the American Bar Association Convention in Chicago on Tuesday.
Conservatives led by justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have criticized Breyer for backing up opinions with references to rulings from abroad, such as a 2002 Death Row case in which Breyer cited decisions by British and Canadian courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
The Supreme Court ". . . should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans," Justice Thomas wrote in response.
But Breyer said Tuesday, "We're not bound by any foreign laws . . . but this is a world in which more and more countries have come to have democratic systems of government with documents like our constitution that protect things like free expression. And there are judges. They have a job that is somewhat similar to the jobs we have. Why not learn something if we can?"
"To tell you the truth, in some of these countries, they're just trying to create these independent judicial systems to protect human rights, contracts. If we cite them sometimes -- not as binding, I promise, not as binding --well, that gives them a little boost sometimes . . . It sort of gives them a leg up for the rule of law."
Breyer admits his and other justices' citing of non-U.S. cases "has hit a political nerve."
It came to a head in March when the court voted 5-4 to outlaw the execution of juveniles, citing, amid other evidence, the fact that other countries had outlawed it.
Breyer's comments came on the last day of the ABA's convention, attended by about 10,000 lawyers.
In defense of journalists
The ABA voted Tuesday to endorse a shield law that would prevent reporters such as the New York Times' Judith Miller from having to go to jail to protect confidential sources.
"Prior to requiring information from journalists, a party should demonstrate that the information sought is essential . . . that all reasonable alternative sources for the information have been exhausted, and that the need for the information clearly outweighs the public interest in protecting the free flow of information," the resolution says.
The vote clears the ABA to lobby congressmen to approve bills pending in both houses of Congress that mirror shield laws already on the books in 49 states.
"We're not asking for anything more from the federal government than exists in the states," Temple University Law Proffessor JoAnne A. Epps told ABA delegates.
"Journalists are caught in the unenviable position of not knowing whether a promise to a source is something they can adhere to" because they don't know whether their notes could be requested by a state court or a federal court, Epps said.
I see no more harm in this than citing Cher or Madonna.
Our laws are base upon a US constitution. Your job is to adhere to the constitution...how did this idiot ever get on the bench?
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.