Posted on 04/02/2008 10:08:28 AM PDT by GVnana
Over the past few years many Americans have become deeply concerned that judges have begun relying more and more on foreign law to decide questions of U.S. constitutional law. One doesn’t have to be a constitutional scholar to object to foreign laws and foreign courts -- laws that are not enacted by our democratic government and judges who are not selected as our Constitution provides -- ruling on Americans’ rights and the powers of American government. These concerns are largely well founded, and reflect the increasing degree to which modern constitutional adjudication has become altogether unmoored from the text and original understanding of the Framers.
Yet an even bigger issue was before the Supreme Court this Term. In Medellín v. Texas, the issue was not simply whether U.S. judges should consult foreign law to guide their decision-making; instead, the central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the United Nations’ World Court has the legal authority to bind the courts of the United States. In other words, the issue was whether decisions of the World Court are superior to those of the Supreme Court, and whether Americans will be governed by the decisions of foreign judges in The Hague.
Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right.
The case began fifteen years ago, when two teenage girls were brutally gang-raped and murdered in northwest Houston, just a few blocks from where I attended church as a child. All six gang members were caught, convicted, and unanimously sentenced to death (except for one who was too young to be eligible for capital punishment). Now approaching two decades after this horrific crime, only one gang member has so far had his sentence carried out.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
“Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right.”
It’s shameful that 3 members of the Supreme Court think that international law trumps the sovereign law of the United States.
I was lurkin at the DU when this decision came down and a few were VERY upset that the U.S. DARE contradict the world court..
Damn fools. The Obama faction, eh?
it don’t matter what faction..they’re all idiots..
LOL. True, so true!
I think we all know which ones they are.
* "Three Blooming Idiots" sung to the tune of "Three Blind Mice" would be the appropriate tune for this occasion.
Glad you and I agree,
Let’s see...Bryer, Stevens, and who was the 3rd decenting opinion?
I’d guess Ginsburg.
Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg were the three traitors who would sell out this country to a socialist European regime, btw.
Thank you...I always get souter and stevens mixed up.
I sure hope they can head off more damage before the libs get back in power.
We MUST be rid of those people.
Agreed.
They should be summarily impeached.
And this should be made a rallying point for the election...the litmus test of patriotism and constitutionalism.
Frankly, I am surprised that Stevens wasn't among them!
THe question should be... Can those 3 that voted for it be impeached for trying to destroy the authority of their own court?
And we pay their salaries to toy with our liberties. Who's more stupid?
I just wanna know if the execution date has been set.
Or until shortly after Congress passes and the president signs Amnesty which will bring the needed 2/3 Democrat majority in the Senate after a couple of election cycles. Then the "World Court" will surely be given its desired status by treaty.
They can be Impeached for ant reason the congress sees fit to use. And they should be, in fact I believe at least half of the Judges in this country should be impeached for refusing to abide by the Constitution. Furthermore If we actually had a congress with balls, they would insert at the end of any Controversial Law “The Supreme Court shall remain silent on this issue” as allowed in the Constitution. “The Supreme Court shall have Jurisdiction unless otherwise directed by congress”
don’t believe me?? LOOK IT UP IN YOUR POCKET CONSTITUTION. what you dont have one?? GET ONE, I gave my old one to a Superior Court Judge after he admitted not Knowing anything in the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, needless to say he is not my friend anymore after this exchange of words. And he still hasn’t read it.
Eyeamok
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.