Posted on 04/13/2006 6:01:11 PM PDT by quidnunc
Conservative legal scho;ars have long warned that judges' reliance on foreign opinions might undermine the mechanism for setting domestic policy under the Constitution. Now, for the second time, a friend of the court brief has been submitted to the Supreme Court by foreign politicians in a case relating to detainees at Guantánamo, suggesting that constitutional control over foreign policy could be similarly jeopardized.
The case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, challenging the administration's military commissions for trying Guantánamo detainees. In the course of the litigation, a shifting group of "current and former members of the United Kingdom and European Union Parliaments" has filed a series of amicus briefs urging the Court to strike down the commissions. Although the original brief had 271 signatories, the number had ballooned to 422 by the time the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.
The submission that these "friends" filed makes clear that they seek to end the military commissions on the basis of international opinion rather than U.S. law, though they couch this argument in legalese. The brief notes in the opening section that it won't address any of the contested issues of U.S. law because "to the outside world it boils down to the simple, but crucial, question of whether the system of legal norms that purports to restrain the conduct of states vis-à-vis individuals within their power will survive the terrorist threat."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Where's Laura Ingraham with her hilarious Breyer soundbites?
Wonder how many they've filed with China? Oh that's right, China would tell them to STFU!
"to the outside world"
The EU often likes to pretend it's the "world"
How about some hearings for those London bombers? No court days yet? LOL hypocrites.
Again.
JUDGE (to an attorney who was at counsel table but who did not represent a party in the action): "Why are you here?"
ATTORNEY: "I'm here as a friend of the court."
JUDGE: "You aren't my friend."
A polite "Thanks, but no thanks" should be sufficient.
I'm certain that these giant "statesmen" meticulously documented the existence and history of this "system of legal norms" that I suspect they pulled out of their prostate location.
Why was this crucial documentation ignored in the article?
LOL!
Idiots as jurists and legislators?
This never occured to anyone as being possible, prior to 1960...
It would appear that anyone can file these amicus briefs, can any Freepers file us in on how we can send one from FreeRepublic with tens of thousands of signatures?
Glad you appreciated my post.
I like your tagline, but beg to differ with your statement above:
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
A judge is a law student who grades his own papers.
A judge is not supposed to know anything about the facts of life until they have been presented in evidence and explained to him at least three times.
Glad you appreciated my post.
I like your tagline, but beg to differ with your statement above:
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
A judge is a law student who grades his own papers.
A judge is not supposed to know anything about the facts of life until they have been presented in evidence and explained to him at least three times.
Two words: NO STANDING
Should we be *more* like China?
No, but it would be nice if we started showing some backbone. Then the rest of world may start to respect us. They would still hate us and blame us, but we wouldn't have massive protests like in the past two weeks.
How exactly does accepting amici briefs translate to a lack of "backbone"?
Because the international body pushing this does not have the best interests of the American people in mind. They just want to pull us down. What, in "international law" should we accept for our local issues? Of the 422 signatories, who are they? When was the election held, and what populations do they represent? These briefs are attempt to influence our courts, not provide a framework for universal human rights.
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.