Posted on 06/29/2010 12:26:59 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan says foreign law could be useful "for getting good ideas" when interpreting the U.S. Constitution but that justices should not feel bound by it.
Kagan was speaking Tuesday in response to questioning by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley on the role of international law in U.S. courts, which some conservatives oppose.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
why are even democrats still interviewing this puke
This statement alone disqualifies her from being on the supreme court. We’re suppose to be a “Nation of Laws.” Laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President NOT some foreign entity!?!?!?!
If that is her final answer any GOP that votes to confirm should be at top of election hit list to replace.
If the Democrats don’t believe in the legitimacy of the US legal code, why should the citizenry?
Agreed! Foreign law and/or court decisions have NO place in American Jurisprudence.
Courts decide what is and is not based on the Constitution ... no other yardstick exists to measure laws enacted by Congress.
She should be drawn and quartered for saying it. Any Justices/Judge that has made a decision based on it should be drawn and quartered. Then the case should be regard for decision based on the Constitution.
And if the US legal code is not binding, why should the rulings of the SCOTUS?
Amen!
i understand why she believes this, but it is stunning that she saidd it.
Usually the rats are more careful in hiding their true beliefs.
This is how the Oligarchy will escape the accusation of Un-Constitutional conduct toward the American people...its their escape hatch...out the door from under American law...and into International jurisdiction. they just need the Supremes to pave the way. You think none of us have “standing” to question Obama’s credentials now?!!
Yeah, look to foreign law especially for places where our law differs from most other countries in a way the left doesn’t like.
They want to ban guns, but the 2A prohibits it. No problem, look to foreign law.
They want their corporate masters in Hollywood to have absolute control, but our copyright is not based on natural right to works (you made it, you own it), instead a limited monopoly for the benefit of the people. No problem, look to foreign law.
I don’t think this is the first time we’ve heard this nonsense. I recall one of the sitting scotus judges said similar.
SCOTUS decides based on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION NOT EUROPEAN/ASIAN TRADITION!! This woman and her President need to be stopped.
We should all be thankful for finding out how this woman thinks and the dangers that would exist and the additional liberties that would be lost should she be elected to the Supreme Court.
No legislation without representation.
She should be removed immediately from consideration. This violates her oath that she is to take.
Why don’t we start following US laws (illegal immigration laws, Tenth Amendment, etc.)?
Maybe the foreign laws that require women to be covered from head to toe (she could certainly be the poster child for that).
How about the foreign laws that require a woman to have three male witnesses to prove she was raped?
Why the world is just full of “good ideas.”
Another zero nominated by Zero!
I cannot express how this answer boils my blood. This concept is completely against our legal tradition, the laws of the land and the supreme one, the Constitution. Of course, I am sure than any law expressed in the Bible does not count of course, but in my mind, if you believe we need be bound by foreign law, find the country you like and move there.
Confirmed? She should be incarcerated.
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.