Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 7, 2003

[mrobison]

LAW OF THE LAND

Justice: Can Constitution make it in global age?

On TV, Breyer wonders whether it will 'fit into governing documents of other nations'

Posted: July 7, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In a rare appearance on a television news show, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned whether the U.S. Constitution, the oldest governing document in use in the world today, will continue to be relevant in an age of globalism.

Speaking with ABC News' "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos and his colleague Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Breyer took issue with Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in a dissent in last month's Texas sodomy ruling, contended the views of foreign jurists are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution.

Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together," Breyer said. "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

In the Lawrence v Texas case decided June 26, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave as a reason for overturning a Supreme Court ruling of 17 years earlier upholding sodomy laws that it was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

Scalia answered in his dissent: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.

Scalia's scathing critique of the 6-3 sodomy ruling was unusual in its bluntness.

"Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct," he wrote. Later he concluded: "This court has taken sides in the culture war."

Both O'Connor and Breyer sought to downplay antipathy between the justices – no matter how contentious matters before the court become. O'Connor said justices don't take harsh criticisms personally.

"When you work in a small group of that size, you have to get along, and so you're not going to let some harsh language, some dissenting opinion, affect a personal relationship," she said. "You can't do that."

Breyer agreed.

"So if I'm really put out by something, I can go to the person who wrote it and say, 'Look, I think you've gone too far here.'"

O'Connor, too, seemed to suggest in the ABC interview that the Constitution was far from the final word in governing America. Asked if there might come a day when it would no longer be the last word on the law, she said: "Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations which also become part of the law of the land, but I can't see the day when we won't have a constitution in our nation."

Asked to explain what he meant when he said judges who favor a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution can't justify their practices by claiming that's what the framers wanted, Breyer responded: "I meant that the extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you're talking about. When you look at the word 'two' for two representatives from every state in the United States Senate, two means two. But when you look like a word – look at a word like 'interstate commerce,' which they didn't have automobiles in mind, or they didn't have airplanes in mind, or telephones, or the Internet, or you look at a word like 'liberty,' and they didn't have in mind at that time the problems of privacy brought about, for example, by the Internet and computers. You realize that the framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed."

In an unrelated matter, O'Connor indicated on "This Week" that she would likely serve out the next term on the court, dismssing speculation that she was about to retire.

The current court is split between Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Scalia, who tend to hold the traditional constitutionalist approach to rulings, and the majority of O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.

[jwalsh07]

For a Supreme Court justice to not realize this is scary.

They are emboldened each and every time some group of ideological fellow travelers applaud their legislating from the bench in contravention of the Constitution because it advances their ideology.

And yes, I do mean you.

[PhiKapMom]

It is not downhill now! It is a total wake-up call that we can never let another liberal sit as President and we need to decrease the number of liberal socialist in the House and Senate. We need to start get strict constitutionalist on the bench instead of people like these two!

I implore each and everyone of you to get active in your Congressionial/Senate/Presidential elections that are coming up -- it is mandatory that you not sit back and say it doesn't mean anything!

Every last person who cares about the Constitution, needs to get off their backside and go volunteer and don't have a give-up attitude. In 1994, everyone was saying that we couldn't take the House and Senate -- well some people felt differently and we did.

We need those extra Senators to vote for the Bush nominees and with a SCOTUS nomination looming, it is more important than ever.

Another thing, people on here can quit reacting to is the baiting being done by the Anti-Bush folks with slanted articles and posts. Ignore them and concentrate on the positives. President Bush will "never" appoint anyone but a strict Constitutionalist to the SCOTUS. He has said it time and time again but some folks on here say otherwise -- time to started believing the people that have supported this man since 1994 when he beat Ma Richards and not the anti-Bush groups on here that he never does anything they like and they find articles to support their point of view.

If you see the word "socialist" with President Bush, you can take it to the bank that they come from one of two camps -- DNC/Dean/Clinton or Buchanan -- throw a dart -- not much difference in any of them.

As for Rush -- he is is not always right and anyone that thinks he is better remember that in 1992 he supported Buchanan against President Bush and turned conservatives to Perot which gave us Clinton. Why don't you all ask Rush how many times he voted for President? You might not like the answer.

[jpl]

I'm terrified at the notion of a landmark gun case coming before this court. I have no doubt anymore that this court would all but strike down the 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat.

[judicial meanz]

Article 3 is a good point, and article 6 is too:

Whereas, Article VI of the Constitution plainly provides that nothing except the Constitution itself, laws enacted by Congress in accordance with the Constitution and treaties theretofore existing or which should thereafter be made in accordance with the Constitution, should be the "law of the land" "supreme" over the constitution and laws of the several states;

How can Breyer plainly state what he said without knowing this?

[Travis McGee]

Scary stuff indeed. Next the SCOTUS will look to Europe for how to rule on the 2nd Amd etc.

This should be topic #1 on Rush, Hannity etc for weeks.

This is no different to me than if these supremes had admitted they were secretly taking orders from Stalin, Hitler etc.

Traitors. Domestic Enemies. If we don't or can't impeach these traitors, there will be hell to pay.

They think they can dictate our laws by the Rule of FIve.

They have not heard of Rule 308, AKA the 2nd Amd.

[ought-six]

"That this man sits on this court and can speak this way is a travesty."

Come on, he is a Clinton appointee. What did you expect? I continue to be of the opinion that the Clintons are the worst thing EVER to happen to America.

[RnMomof7]

If we dont stand up and take care of these abuses of office and subordination of the Constitution as they occur, and remove these self serving elitist fools from the offices they hold at all levels, we deserve this. Its time to take a stand, ladies and gents.

Tell us how to do this and we will

[bandleader]

I was STUNNED to read that these people who have sworn to "Preserve,Protect,and Defend"The United States Constitution really just see it as an out of date document that has seen better days and is up to their whimsical theories as to intent!!These people should be IMPEACHED!!!Who's going to start a grass roots on this?

[bandleader]

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheBattman]

What democracy? The US is NOT a Democracy and never has been. We have a Republic which IS different from the Mob -rule that is "Democracy". The founding fathers were wise enough to know the difference.

Your point is correct in saying that we have the longest continually operating representative government in the world - we must have been doing something right. Maybe the world should look to us for some ideas on government, not trying to make us conform to their ideals.

[M. Peach]

The consent of the Senate?

This should be an interesting fillibuster...

[RnMomof7]

It is time to act to save this country. Christians built it and we may have to save it..Bump

[sr4402]

"Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

I thought that Supreme Court Justices were supposed to uphold the constitution?

Let me interpret the buzz words here... "globalization" - I am a globalist... "spread of democratic institutions" - I am a liberal democrat. "whether our Constitution... fits into the governing documents of other nations" - I want our nation under other nations... "challenge for the next generations" to be ruled by the next generation of liberal hitler youth.

[sr4402]

"Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

I thought that Supreme Court Justices were supposed to uphold the constitution?

Let me interpret the buzz words here... "globalization" - I am a globalist... "spread of democratic institutions" - I am a liberal democrat. "whether our Constitution... fits into the governing documents of other nations" - I want our nation under other nations... "challenge for the next generations" to be ruled by the next generation of liberal hitler youth.

[bandleader]

What was it that Rodney King said?Wasn't it something like"Can't We All Just Get Along"?Well,I don't want to just"Get Along",I want The United States Constitution STRICTLY APPLIED and if the rest of the world doesn' like it(as The Brits would say)BUGGER THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RasterMaster]

Supreme Court Justices have outlived their usefullness....time to retire these folks and let them go to work for the UN.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you! As much as President Bush is getting attacked by Rush and on here, wonder he doesn't tell the far right conservative movement to take a hike!

I am flat out disgusted with what I am seeing and hearing. We have a one vote margin in the Senate and several moderates but the Senate is supposed to pass everything that conservatives want. Not going to happen. Better for conservatives to whine and threaten to stay home then get out and work to get their candidates elected.

A huge dose of reality is needed! People are paying attention to the fringers on here instead of using their brains as well.

I don't know who I am madder at -- the conservatives that eat their own with their ridiculous attacks on the President and the Senate, or the SCOTUS except for Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas!

Just mark me down as flat out mad right now.

[ought-six]

"If something doesn't give soon, I am afraid the USA as we know it is done for - it's leftist ideas like those expressed by these two that are going to bring us down."

America is in its final stages of being the bastion of freedom; it will cease to be the America I love probably within the next twenty years. We have allowed the elitists to completely dominate and control the critical elements of information dissemination: the schools, the media, and the courts. We are close to the end of the world's greatest experiment in freedom, as, by allowing this situation to take hold, we've shown ourselves unworthy of that which is needed for a people to be free in the first place.

[bandleader]

Yes,and he's rapidly becoming a Carbuncle!I had one once and the only way to cure it was to"Lance"it!!

[TLBSHOW]

At least Rush is waking people up to Bush and his socialist ways....