[lugsoul]

Which comments? You claim he said the Constitution is subordinate to international agreements. I asked you where he said this, and you pointed to the Lawrence decision (which he didn't write, and which didn't say this either). I would not defend such a comment, but I haven't seen it, and the article you posted does not contain it, except in the headline authored by you. Also, point our where he said American citizens are legally accountable to international bodies. You are twisting the words to reach a conclusion that is not stated.

[exmarine]

Hello lugsoul - first of all, I didnt' post this article. Second, the article quotes:

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."

There's a problem with any justice who has the temerity to even question how our "Constitution FITS into the governing documents of other nations." Who gives a flip? The governing documents of other nations HAVE NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on our Constitution and its interpretation.

More: 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.

This guy is using godless amoral european rulings as HIS GUIDE to constitutional interpretation!!! You don't see a problem with that? Scalia did - read is dissenting comments. You dont' see globalist intentions in that? Wake up and smell the coffee.