Please show your support for judicial reform by signing the Petition for "The Judicial Reformation and Reorganization Act of 2004"
America thanks you
Posted on 07/07/2003 7:00:07 AM PDT by 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.
Now we see the truth. Your "free exercise" is actually a right to government-sponsored advantage for your chosen faith.
Nah. If they let dims post, they won't suspend a conservative for stating the truth.
Well, the fact that one of my pals got a chuckle out of that lunacy shows that you can find something of value in most anything if you try hard enough. :-}
Ohh man...
I've tried-I really have.
Can't get it done.
You have it wrong. In my mind, free exercise requires that the govt STAY OUT OF MY FAITH ALTOGETHER! That means if I want to speak of Jesus Christ at my valedictorial speech, then I am free to do so; that means if I want to speak out against a horrible presidential candidate like Gore, I can do so without penalties; that means if my Christian community wants a creche on the grounds of City Hall, it can do so without being harrassed by one lone jerk protestor! Get it?
Now we see the truth. Your "free exercise" is actually a right to government-sponsored advantage for your chosen faith.
That's a laugh. You want to talk about "equal justice" under the law, let's talk about the Michigan decision which gave minorities MORE rights than caucasions! Do you call that equal justice? Again, the infernal SCOTUS has made a bad decision (one after another).
Well, SCOTUS has made a mess of things haven't they? What about the 10th amendment? Does that have any meaning? Since there is no const. right to sodomy, the STATE OF TEXAS RULES under the 10th Amendment. A phantom right doesn't count! Anyone can come up with a phantom right of any kind at any time - you call that law? That, my friend, is LEGISLATION and that is the domain of CONGRESS! SCOTUS has overstepped its constitutional authority - ZERO doubt about it.
And besides, you didn't respond to my earlier: Well, how about if we widen the the option from SCOTUS to Federal Govt (including federal courts and the U.S. Congress)? How about restricting the speech of a valedictorian at graduation? How about the 9th Court decision on the Pledge of Allegiance? How about the 501(c)(3) which restricts pastors from speaking freely on political candidates? That isn't a restriction on free speech? I think it is - why hasn't the SCOTUS overturned that perversion?
I might also ask you why our national anthem hasn't been outlawed? Have you read the the more obscure second verse - it's purely Christian! Egad man! It has to go! Once again, this shows how schizoid this wall of separation crap is. Renquist himself said the "Wall of Separation" was bad history and worse law and should be abandoned. Only those six liberal oligarch tyrants (yes, TYRANTS) believe they can rule any way they want. The day is coming when Americans are going to DEFY that pathetic court. Then what? Hmm? Are they going to jail millions? I think not - the jails are already full.
Are you referring to the 501(c)(3)? Are you going to sit there and tell me that this is not a restriction on free speech? I think you need to read a history of the revolutionary war as it related to preachers and the use of the pulpit for political causes, and I think you need to read teh free exercise clause again - it makes no exceptions for political candidates! In fact, it MAKES NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL. That's the problem with you and all other constitutional darwinists - you think you can just mold the law of the land into anything you want it to be. I am here to tell you that I won't let you if I can stop it.
Yeah, right, and I'm Lawrence of Arabia.
see the problem of getting instruction from G-d? Until G-d has an aol account, and probably after, there will be thousands of prophets (seeking profits) who will be willing to claim to represent G-d. If you want to see what that leads to, visit Iran.
Iran has precisely nothing to do with the Holy Scriptures. Sola Scriptura refers to the bible and the bible only, and without the Reformation, there would be no United States, as it was founded by Calvinists fleeing persecution from England.
My thoughts, exactly.
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.