[lugsoul]

A) I see two different things going on here. First, both Breyer and O'Connor seemed to be saying that "globalisation," i.e. increased mobility of people, goods, ideas, information across national borders will produce some conflicts between accepted international practices and domestic governance - the "challenge." I don't see any problem with this observation, and it is certainly a truthful one. Without cataloging the numerous possibilities, it seems entirely likely that certain interpretations of the Constitution will run headlong into accepted international practices. My guess is that this is far more likely to occur in the commercial realm than in the "social" one. Think intellectual property law. And, yes, it will be a "challenge."

Second, some folks are taking these statements and claiming that the justices are advocating (1) making the Constitution subordinate to foreign governing documents or (2) making the U.S. Government subservient to international bodies, or both. I don't see those statements in this article anywhere, and if you do I'd love for you to point them out.

Next - Breyer didn't write Lawrence. Kennedy did. The reference to the ECHR was in direct response to the Bowers decision, which held - using questionably employed support - that all of Western civilisation condemned sodomy. In overruling that case, the Court addressed the arguments used in support of the Bowers decision. Strange that no one questioned reliance on foreign sources in the Bowers case. Anyway, at no point did the Court say its Constitutional interpretation was controlled by the ECHR. Instead, it used that source in an effort to refute the assertion in Bowers. Plain and simple.

There are plenty of real issues out there to deal with, without making new ones up.

[exmarine]

If you can't see the globalist bent in Breyer's comments, then there's nothing more I can say.

[Modernman]

There are plenty of real issues out there to deal with, without making new ones up.

Very good post. I read the article that started this post and didn't really find the statements by the Justices all that controversial. I think the jist of what they were saying is that as globalization progresses (which it will, despite what Pat Buchanan-esque Paleo-cons and left-wing anti-globalists may hope) we'll be entering an era where the US, and all other countries, will enter into treaties to regulate commerce, intellectual property, cross-border crime etc. I didn't read the article to mean the those treaties will override our Constitution. Rather, I saw the justices as raising issues that our legislatures, courts and international negotiators will all have to consider in the future. The inflammatory article heading made the Justices' comments seem much more controversial than they really were, IMO.