Posted on 03/21/2006 5:46:04 AM PST by Cboldt
IN A SPEECH last month at the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made some unfair insinuations about critics of the use of foreign law in American courts. Justice Ginsburg was defending what is, in our view, a perfectly defensible proposition: that American courts should "learn from legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own." Yet in doing so, she managed to link those who take an opposing view to the legacies of slavery and apartheid and to paint them as "fuel[ing] the irrational fringe" in its threats against judges. ...
... Justice Antonin Scalia offers some reasonable criticisms of how the court has used foreign precedents -- that is, selectively, when foreign law supports results that the court cannot justify based on American authorities alone. ...
One doesn't have to agree, in other words, that foreign law has no place in American courts to worry that courts are using foreign law too politically. And one doesn't need to be Chief Justice Taney -- or a South African racist or an aspiring domestic terrorist -- to believe that it would be better if courts did not interpret America's founding documents in light of foreign authorities that postdate them. Justice Ginsburg has a strong case to make without stooping to such insinuations.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A "smack on" criticism of outcome based (result oriented) jurisprudence.
Justice Ginsberg doesn't have to stoop to her insinuations, she begins from a low point in all her thinking.
The Founders would have had her shot.
I doubt it. They would have impeached her, an action that is about as likely in today's climate and with today's gutless Congress as taking the more extreme measure that you are joking about.
She might want to check out North Korean, Saudi, and Iranian law while she's at it. I'm sure she'll pick up some ideas there.
Oh! And what about law from the past? Cambodian law under President Pot? German law under President Hitler? Soviet law under Premier Stalin?
There's an abundance of source material out there. Get Busy, Ruthie. There's no limit to the ideas you can glean!
She is an idiot.
She should be impeached. So should the other "Justices" responsible for the recent eminent domain decision, just as the "Justices" who handed down the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions should have been impeached.
Nothing wrong with elected members of the legislature looking to foreign law for guidence in making US law. But there is by definition something very wrong with unelected judges looking at foreign law and imposing it by fiat on Americans. Very wrong. The job of Congress is to look at "could be". The job of judges is to only rule on "what is".
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.