European Union Influenced US Supreme Court on Sodomy

SeaMax ^ | 7/3/2003 | Fr. Michael Reilly

[Hugenot]

As the Supreme Court ruling on Texas' sodomy law continues to generate controversy, Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute reveals a disturbing new element.

The US Supreme Court used foreign precedents in formulating their decision.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to a "Friend of the Court" brief submitted by former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson.

"This Court should not decide in a vacuum whether criminalization of same-sex sodomy between consenting adults violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection. Other nations with similar histories, legal systems, and political cultures have already answered these questions in the affirmative. This Court should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind."

Robinson continued to warn the US Supreme Court warning the Supreme Court that, "To ignore these precedents virtually ensures that this Court's ruling will generate controversies with the United State's closest global allies."

Justice Scalia expressly condemned this apparent reliance on foreign precedent in his dissent: "Constitutional elements do not spring into existence…as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct. ...this Court…should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."

Even more alarming, Ruse warns, "If the Supreme Court continues to be guided by the decisions of the UN and the EU, US recognition of same-sex marriage could eventually follow suit."

[foreverfree]

bump

[AntiGuv]

The US Supreme Court used foreign precedents in formulating their decision.

No, it didn't. Kennedy was explicitly responding to Chief Justice Burger's use of the Theodosian & Justinian Code - amongst other such ridiculous inanities - in the Bowers v Hardwick ruling. If Burger had not cited European precedents in that ruling, Kennedy would not have needed to cite them in response to Burger...

[blackdog]

That name Mary Robinson keeps popping back up within the ongoings of this nation. The odd part is that Robinson is not an elected representative of anyone in this nation. Being a (former) commissioner for the UN should be grounds for the brief filed by her to see the shredder.

Robinson is not even an elected official of any European nation. Just because you are appointed to something does not mean spawning policy is your role.

May I be the first, considering I enjoy the same unelected rights as Ms.Robinson, to file a brief before the EU to have her bitch slapped?

[Dilly]

This article is disingenuous. Scalia himself has acknowledged that looking to laws of other nations is proper in interpreting the Constitution. He wrote:

"The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely a historical accident, but rather so 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well." Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. at 868 n. 4, Scalia dissenting

[longtermmemmory]

UN?! even more important to push the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[lady lawyer]

Mary Robinson should not have even been allowed to file an amicus brief. Permission of the court is required.

[Cicero]

This is indeed disgusting. But much as I deplore Mary Robinson, the real problem is Anthony Kennedy and the other corrupt justices on the Supreme Court.

As soon as it was announced that the Supreme Court would review this case, it was obvious to me that they intended to reverse their earlier opinion. Otherwise, why take the case? It was a done deal.

[jwalsh07]

No, it didn't. Kennedy was explicitly responding to Chief Justice Burger's use of the Theodosian & Justinian Code - amongst other such ridiculous inanities - in the Bowers v Hardwick ruling. If Burger had not cited European precedents in that ruling, Kennedy would not have needed to cite them in response to Burger...

Bowers was decided 5 years after the Europeans had already set a precedent involving homosexuals.

Burger cited no cases of specific laws of European legal precedent in his opinion, it was an historical perspective.

Kennedy and the dwarfs, on the other hand, cited multiple cases of European precedent in the last 30 years. So they, in part, justified their ruling on the current mores of socialist nations in usurping the tenth amendment rights of Texans.

Bodes well for gun control, socialised medicine and three month's on holiday on your dime.

[AntiGuv]

Bowers was decided 5 years after the Europeans had already set a precedent involving homosexuals.

The context is not dependent on the chronology.

Burger cited no cases of specific laws of European legal precedent in his opinion, it was an historical perspective.

Agreed. Kennedy cited no cases of specific laws of European legal precedent in his opinion, it was an historical perspective [in response to an historical perspective].

[jwalsh07]

The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P. G. & J. H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, ¶ ;56 (Eur. Ct. H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1988).

Certainly he did unless the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Ireland are the 51, 52 and 53 states.

He also cited Mary Robinsons amicus brief. Did Burger?

[AntiGuv]

Burger cited the 4th Century Theodosian Code at 9.7.6; the 6th Century Justinian Code at 9.9.31; English royal statutory authority - 25 Henry VIII 6; and the common law of England as described in Blackstone's Commentaries....

[dirtboy]

"This Court should not decide in a vacuum whether criminalization of same-sex sodomy between consenting adults violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection. Other nations with similar histories, legal systems, and political cultures have already answered these questions in the affirmative. This Court should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind."

That should be grounds for impeachment and removal from the bench, in and of itself.

[TheAngryClam]

No, but you have the same right as an unelected person to file an amicus brief.

[jwalsh07]

Talk about a rolling 180. Wow!

[jwalsh07]

That should be grounds for impeachment and removal from the bench, in and of itself.

Nice to know I'm not alone in being troubled by SCOTUS using Eurotrash precedent.

[CyberAnt]

Sooooo ... the UN sticks it to us once again ...??

[Darksheare]

So they used foreign precedent..
That is a bad idea.
There are several foreign law precedents that go directly against the Constitution.
This is a very bad idea.