Ginsburg: Int'l law shaped court rulings

AP | 8/03/03 | GINA HOLLAND

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Saturday.

The justices referred to the findings of foreign courts this summer in their own ruling that states may not punish gay couples for having sex.

And in 2002, the court said that executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel. That ruling noted that the practice was opposed internationally.

"Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention.

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making.

Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

The shift has angered some conservatives. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the gay sex case, wrote with two colleagues that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."

David Rivkin Jr., a conservative Washington attorney, said foreign trends can be helpful to legislators in setting policy, but not to judges in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Last month, Ginsburg and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour. France outlawed the death penalty in 1981. Ginsburg was one of five justices who attended a conference on the European constitution.

Ginsburg said Saturday that the Internet is making decisions of courts in other countries more readily available in America, and they should not be ignored.

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others."

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[Athelas]

"This makes me completely enraged."

Me too. The duty of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the Constitution, not check in with Canada and France to see what they do. I listened to the SCOTUS debate on the Michigan case on CSPAN and it was striking as Ginsburg repeatedly asked questions like "What does Canada do when XYZ" and "What do the Europeans do when ABC".

This is the one place Liberals are ahead of Conservatives as far as smarts. Lib's understand they can do anything they want if they have the courts, even when the Pubs hold every other branch of government. We haven't really taken that lesson to heart yet I think. That's why our judges sit being filibustered because they have "deeply held" Christian views and hardly anyone says anything.

This is dangerous for our Country leaving aside what side of the political fence you are on. It is a very bad thing when judges rule by fiat. If a court can rule that Racial Preferences are a good thing despite the plain language of the Constitution they can just as easily rule we can't post on a forum like this despite the First Amendment. After all our First Amendment is also pretty unusual in this world.

We have all three branches of government but the liberal agenda on Race, Gays, etc, marches on unchecked. Enraged is a good way to put it.

[Atlas Sneezed]

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Republican Wildcat]

Remember the Libertarians? The so-called defenders of the "true" Constitution heiled this ruling that required use of foreign laws and precedent to trump the Constitution. It really demonstrates just how much they care and know about the Constitution.

[Republican Wildcat]

I think that impeachment should be considered. This is an obvious violation of her oath of office. She is allowing foreign influence to interfere in her duties.

[AlbionGirl]

This article is proof positive that this woman, while highly educated, is willing to impose her global philosophy on the US, and the Constitution be damned.

She isn't fit to shine the shoes of one of the founding fathers, and yet she is empowered to detroy their visionary philosophy and hard fought gains.

She'd better hope she never pushes any 'lone ranger' buttons better left untouched. Her mentatlity and subsequent rulings (along with the rest of her 'large' minded brethren) could be the catalyst for a second revolt; one in which the Supreme court is not viewed as very Supreme.

[zip]

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making.

Wow, am I dumb. I thought it was the Supreme Court of the United States not of the world. This is the major problem with SCOUS that has surfaced recently. They don't even try to mask their one world bias, it's "in your face" rulings being handed down now.

Hey Senate Republicans, how about a little moral courage and force the dims to "really" filibuster the judicial nominees. Stop letting them run the show.

[11th Earl of Mar]

she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. "We are the losers..."

That about sums it up.

[geedee]

This is un-frickin'-believable.

kattracks, you're probably up on this stuff. Can you give me a short and sweet version of how Supreme Court Justices are replaced? They have to be impeached, right?

Sorry, I'm old and dumb and it's been a long time since I took Constitutional studies.

[geedee]

This makes me completely enraged. Who the f**k does she think she is? Why the &@^$& should our country effing kowtow to the kooks and socialists and enemies in other countries to determine OUR constitution? Can someone please get the hook and get rid of this toad?

My sentiments exactly. Well said.

[Dan from Michigan]

This is the US CONSTITUTION.

Judges like GINSBURG that do not follow that should be IMPEACHED for ABUSE OF POWER.

[geedee]

This is dangerous for our Country leaving aside what side of the political fence you are on. It is a very bad thing when judges rule by fiat. If a court can rule that Racial Preferences are a good thing despite the plain language of the Constitution they can just as easily rule we can't post on a forum like this despite the First Amendment. After all our First Amendment is also pretty unusual in this world.

Yikes! A FReeper who can actual write so a moron like me can understand.

I agree by the way and I want to wish you a belated "Welcome Aboard." We need a gazillion more FReepers with the clarity of thought you have and so eloquently state.

[NativeNewYorker]

I would like to apologize to my fellow Freepers on behalf of my fellow Brooklynite, fellow Cornellian, and co-religionist.

She must be suffering from Alzheimer's.

She is literally, flatly, insane.

[PISANO]

I guess I am in an abyss of my own creation! I have been operating under the belief that Justices were supposed to interpert OUR United States Constitution NOT International law. I would advocate the IMPEACHMENT of any Justice/Judge that would take such a position as this. However, here in the abyss, of my own creation, known as wonderland, I must be mistaken.

[Kevin Curry]

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making.

This is your sweetheart Ruthie talking, tpaine--your unelected superlegislator-for-life savior from "statist" government.

Come pay homage to her openly if you dare.

[kitkat]

***Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making.***

Excuse me, but didn't Ginsberg just admit that she is no longer defending the constitution of the U.S.A.? And since she took an oath to defend it, shouldn't she be run out of town as a turncoat, a traitor, Benedict Arnold?

Benedict Arnold Ginsberg?

[Kevin Curry]

Remember the Libertarians? The so-called defenders of the "true" Constitution heiled this ruling . . .

"[H]eiled this ruling." LOL. Very good.

[A CA Guy]

No kidding, the rest of the world isn't as successful as us, but this #$%&^%# *&^#$ decides to run her part of the court like a one world government.

[Osage Orange]

Everytime I see this woman..I'm reminded of the movie "Tootsie"....

Makes me think too much...if you get my drift.

Fwiw-

[takenoprisoner]

The goal of the ACS (the name itself a fraud) is to protect the established law which reflects the liberal agenda...and then to influence curent and future law makers and judges.

There's nothing resembling the Constitution in the make up of the "American Constitutional Society." It's a fraud on the American people, and our Constitution. A more proper name which reflects the true goals of the ACS would be "How a Society of liberals misinterpret the Constitution."