Supreme Court Justice Stevens Says Getting International Opinions a Responsible Practice

AP ^ | AP-ES-05-24-05 0119EDT | Jeanine Ibrahim

[TheOtherOne]

Oh boy

[Petronski]

That kind of treasonous behavior ought to be good under the law for a hanging.

[bamaborn]

This coupled with the news of the so called compromise in the Senate is enough to make any Nationalist sick to his or her stomach.

[TheOtherOne]

There is a vast difference between U.S. justices (1) considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and (2) allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws, Stevens said at a meeting of the 7th Circuit Bar Association and Judicial Conference of the Seventh Circuit.

"We should not be impeached for the former," he said. "And we are not guilty of the latter."

[TheOtherOne]

That is his defense. Of the opinions I have read, it is true, none have relied on foriegn or international law for precidence. Although it has started to creep in as dicta, etc.

[RJL]

There is a vast difference between U.S. justices considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws, Stevens said

Liberal are sure good at "nuance".

[gr8eman]

You don't have to leave the country to live in a socialist state. Just go to Taxachoosetts!

[taxesareforever]

I suppose he is consulting decisions from the Muslim communities.

[TheOtherOne]

that's a hanging offense

[martin_fierro]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Wrong.

[wardaddy]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still far and away the worst.

She may be the most leftist individual to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

(I'm open to corrections)

[TheOtherOne]

Was Clinton that good, or did the Republicans just really abdicate their duty?

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Gerald Ford's pathetic legacy is on display for everyone to see.

[Petronski]

There is a vast difference between U.S. justices (1) considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and (2) allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws

Yes, there's a vast difference. However, neither is relevant in interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Any suitably self-preserving state would have severe penalties for this crap.

[garandgal]

Any suitably self-preserving state would have severe penalties for this crap.

Why, we do have penalties for just such an event..but no one with the (I'll be polite) intestinal fortitude to enforce them.

[wardaddy]

They went along to get along.

Just like now.

Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3.

Imagine that

[TheOtherOne]

Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3.

Wow, she must be really mainstream! 96, DAMN! So that must be at least 30 Republicans, I wonder how many are still serving, of those who voted yea on Ginsburg?

[wardaddy]

I wish I could find who were the three who voted against her.

I bet that eccentric fellow from New Hampshire was one....Bob Smith.

Probably Jesse Helms too.

Damn I miss Helms...he was diligent.

[wardaddy]

A zinger Jesse Helms quote:

Helms was one of only three senators to vote against Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court nomination. He stated that she was "likely to uphold the homosexual agenda."

Prophetic.