[Cboldt]

A lukewarm criticism of the use of foreign precedents, but criticism nonetheless.

A "smack on" criticism of outcome based (result oriented) jurisprudence.

[TomGuy]

All the SCJ's and former SCJ's (as in O'Conner) should re-read early American history. The reason we had the American Revolution was to get away from foreign laws.

[Amazing that these people get appointed to the high courts and go stupid.]

[OldFriend]

Justice Ginsberg doesn't have to stoop to her insinuations, she begins from a low point in all her thinking.

[msnimje]

The Founders would have had her shot.

[Savage Beast]

Has Justice Ginsburg consulted Zimbabwe law? Is that where she came up with her notions about eminent domain?

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!

[Ditto]

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".