Posted on 08/03/2003 7:04:18 AM PDT by 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/
No, that's what Libertarians and Socialists think.
Stephan Breyer, another Clinton appointee, said pretty much the same thing.
Now I know who Ann Coultar was writing about in her book "Treason".
A UFO abduction works as well as a bolt of lightning for me...;-)
And who pray-tell were these libertarians? And do you have a link?
See the "Bill of Rights"....2nd amendment.
See the "Bill of Rights"....2nd amendment.
Dream on. Frist is a limp-wrister loser, and Rove is enforcing his flaccid "New Tone" nonsense. Watch "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" which portrays a REAL fillibuster. Can you imagine Ted Kennedy standing for 24 hours (or 24 minutes for that matter), without peeing (or having access to his Old Bushmills I.V.)
Now they want to distance themselves from these SCOTUS ninnies?
To hear libertarians tell it, they pride themselves on taking "principled" stances. There is nothing "principled" about applauding the Lawrence decision in one breath and condemning its underlying rationale in the next. The Lawrence decision merely proves that many if not most libertarians are driven by convenience and results (harnessed to the service of drug and sexual appetites)--not principles.
Well, she was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in America, and life expectancy among people diagnosed with colon cancer is 5 years. Hopefully she'll respond to a higher call before too long.
Kevin Curry lies:
Wrong. Libertarians ecstatically applauded the goofy legal gymnastics Ginsburg, Breyer, Kenendy and the other three unelected superlegislator-for-life noble defenders of sexual perversion used to justify the Lawrence decision (tpaine was wetting his adult diaper from the thrill of it).
Kevin, the theads went on for a week or better. I explained & argued my positions in detail, over dozens of posts. You never made a rational counter to ANY of my posts at the time.
Simply put, you are too stupid to argue specifics. - You flame & run, as you have on this thread, just as you always do.
You are a coward.
Now they want to distance themselves from these SCOTUS ninnies? To hear libertarians tell it, they pride themselves on taking "principled" stances. There is nothing "principled" about applauding the Lawrence decision in one breath and condemning its underlying rationale in the next.
Post one instance where this has happened. You lie again.
The Lawrence decision merely proves that many if not most libertarians are driven by convenience and results (harnessed to the service of drug and sexual appetites)--not principles.
The above merely proves my point Curry. You are a cowardly liar who NEVER backs up your flames with facts.
Take your crap to the backroom.
Why do you try to deliberately insult our natural allies. Communism with its forced denial of all individual rights, in pursuit of a unified egalitarian strictured humanity, is the absolute opposite of Libertarianism with its emphasis on the rights of the individual. The Founding Fathers were basically Libertarians. We Conservatives honor them today as Conservatives, because their Libertarian values became the American norm--hence the foundation for today's Conservatism.
I agree with those who consider Mrs. Justice Ginsberg's comment as grounds for beginning hearings on her possible impeachment. She is clearly indifferent to her oath of office, indifferent to the oath she took when she became a lawyer, and indifferent to any sense of an honorable commitment to the functions of the Court on which she sits.
The decision Americans made in 1776 was to be independent of the way Europe did things. Reverse that decision, and you reverse the legal basis for our Constitution and the Court that that Constitution created.
That Mrs. Justice Ginsberg is true to her Clintonian mission, I have no doubt. There were a number of key decisions by the last President, clearly calculated to undermine the American tradition, values and sovereignty. Many who rail against Clinton for minor misbehavior, choose to overlook the fact that the man was a dedicated Fabian Socialist, working for an agenda intended to permanently alter our way of life. Mrs. Justice Ginsberg is just one more example of what Clinton was really all about--and all about since his Leftist student days.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I didn't.
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
That's only part of the answer, and it'll be a long time in coming.
Quotes like what I've read in this article by RBG are why the Republican leadership in
Congress must impeach activist leftist globalist commie tyrant judges
who disdain and seek to destroy our country, our constitution, and our culture.
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.