Skip to comments.
European Union Influenced US Supreme Court on Sodomy
SeaMax ^
| 7/3/2003
| Fr. Michael Reilly
Posted on 07/03/2003 9:21:41 AM PDT by 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."
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: austinruse; cfhri; court; europe; gays; lawrence; lawrencevtexas; scotus; scotuslist; sodomy; sovereigntylist; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
1
posted on
07/03/2003 9:21:41 AM PDT
by
Hugenot
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: Hugenot
bump
To: Hugenot
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...
5
posted on
07/03/2003 9:43:16 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: Hugenot
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?
6
posted on
07/03/2003 9:54:12 AM PDT
by
blackdog
(Who weeps for the tuna?)
To: Hugenot
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
7
posted on
07/03/2003 9:58:44 AM PDT
by
Dilly
To: Hugenot
UN?! even more important to push the Federal Marriage Amendment.
To: Hugenot
Mary Robinson should not have even been allowed to file an amicus brief. Permission of the court is required.
To: Hugenot
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.
10
posted on
07/03/2003 11:05:47 AM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: AntiGuv
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.
11
posted on
07/03/2003 11:13:26 AM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
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].
12
posted on
07/03/2003 11:15:52 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: AntiGuv
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?
13
posted on
07/03/2003 11:38:41 AM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
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....
14
posted on
07/03/2003 11:50:45 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: Hugenot
"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.
15
posted on
07/03/2003 11:51:46 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
To: blackdog
No, but you have the same right as an unelected person to file an amicus brief.
16
posted on
07/03/2003 1:09:47 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
To: AntiGuv
Talk about a rolling 180. Wow!
17
posted on
07/03/2003 2:28:24 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: dirtboy
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.
18
posted on
07/03/2003 2:29:53 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: Hugenot
Sooooo ... the UN sticks it to us once again ...??
19
posted on
07/03/2003 2:34:59 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
To: Hugenot
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.
20
posted on
07/03/2003 3:40:24 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Nox aeturnus en pax.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson