SCOTUS may base more decisions on int'l law

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-30 04:06pm

Bypass Constitution?

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will increasingly base its decisions on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

By doing so, the court will make a good impression among people from other countries, she said.

"The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," Justice O'Connor said.

On the whole, the U.S. judicial system leaves a favorable impression around the world, she said "but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out."

The 73-year-old justice made her remarks at a dinner in Atlanta sponsored by the Southern Center for International Studies.

The first cited case was decided in 2002 when the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, she said. In arriving at that decision, Justice O'Connor said, the high court noted that the world community overwhelmingly disapproved of the practice.

Also influential was a court brief filed by American diplomats who discussed the difficulties confronted in their foreign missions due to U.S. death-penalty practices, she said.

The second ruling cited by Justice O'Connor was the striking down of the Texas antisodomy law, relying partly on a series of decisions by European courts on the same issue.

"I suspect," Justice O'Connor said, "that over time we will rely increasingly — or take notice, at least — increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-30 04:15pm

Time for an impeachment. We also ought to set some damn term limits on judges, there are far too many cases of them legislating from the bench and spewing out obvious bullshit.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 05:03pm

MORONS. WE ARE BEING RULED BY A MOROCRICY.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-30 05:24pm

One situation in which I would support packing the bench with conservative judges is if the current justices began ruling based on international law.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-30 05:48pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:One situation in which I would support packing the bench with conservative judges is if the current justices began ruling based on international law.

Of course, they'll never admit to using international law in their formal briefs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-30 05:55pm

What's so bad about taking a lead from international precedent? It's not as if they said they would be constrained by international law.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-30 05:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:What's so bad about taking a lead from international precedent? It's not as if they said they would be constrained by international law.

Because America knows better than you, you Canadian heathen.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-30 05:59pm

Durandal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What's so bad about taking a lead from international precedent? It's not as if they said they would be constrained by international law.
Because America knows better than you, you Canadian heathen.

Oh yeah, I forgot that America enjoys unique status under God. I will now bow my head, retreat from the sanctity of American political discussions, and resume my heathenistic acts of sodomy and self-pleasure.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-30 06:02pm

Durandal wrote: Of course, they'll never admit to using international law in their formal briefs.

This right here is more than disturbing enough.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-30 07:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What's so bad about taking a lead from international precedent? It's not as if they said they would be constrained by international law.
Because America knows better than you, you Canadian heathen.
Oh yeah, I forgot that America enjoys unique status under God. I will now bow my head, retreat from the sanctity of American political discussions, and resume my heathenistic acts of sodomy and self-pleasure.

Good. I'm glad you've learned your place.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-30 07:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:What's so bad about taking a lead from international precedent?

The fact that the court exists to interpret the US constitution and nothing more.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-30 07:36pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What's so bad about taking a lead from international precedent?
The fact that the court exists to interpret the US constitution and nothing more.

And why is that considered to be an ideal situation?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-10-30 07:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What's so bad about taking a lead from international precedent? It's not as if they said they would be constrained by international law.
Because America knows better than you, you Canadian heathen.
Oh yeah, I forgot that America enjoys unique status under God. I will now bow my head, retreat from the sanctity of American political discussions, and resume my heathenistic acts of sodomy and self-pleasure.

Just imagine, if not for Europe Texas would still be executing mental retards and actively arresting dangerous sodomizers.

Bad E.U, bad!

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-30 07:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: The fact that the court exists to interpret the US constitution and nothing more.
And why is that considered to be an ideal situation?

The constitution mandates that they do that and no more. If we don't like the mandate of the court in the constitution, then we'll amend the constitution to increase their mandate. The constitution provides for that, you know.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-10-30 07:53pm

Good for them. A lot of foreign laws are better than ours.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-30 07:55pm

The problem I think is how much of the Constitution can we ignore in favor of international laws? And how much of these international laws will have precedent over our own laws?

The degree to which they should be allowed is obvious to most people, but in a political climate, who knows.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 09:24pm

The United States is not a foreign country. It should be ruled according to its own laws.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-30 09:27pm

HemlockGrey wrote:The United States is not a foreign country. It should be ruled according to its own laws.

The United States does not exist in a vacuum. It should be ruled with concessions made to the fact it's not alone.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2003-10-30 09:39pm

he United States is not a foreign country. It should be ruled according to its own laws.

[China]"The People's Republic of China is not America. It should be ruled according to its own correct-thought people's laws."[/China]

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 10:00pm

You will note, of course, that the United States' laws are founded upon a Constitution which ensures basic human rights. Our Supreme Court should be examining issues based upon how they effect this nation, this nation's laws, and how they fit in with this nation's Constitution, not those of Lichtenstein.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-30 10:02pm

HemlockGrey wrote:You will note, of course, that the United States' laws are founded upon a Constitution which ensures basic human rights. Our Supreme Court should be examining issues based upon how they effect this nation, this nation's laws, and how they fit in with this nation's Constitution, not those of Lichtenstein.

Interesting leap in logic. They are considering other laws when they rule, so they are immediately putting that at teh top of the list and not considering anything of their normal constraints.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-30 10:04pm

SirNitram wrote:
The United States does not exist in a vacuum. It should be ruled with concessions made to the fact it's not alone.

The United States is a sovereign country and has the absolute right--no, the absolute and supreme duty--to decide on its course through its sovereign political process. Anything else is an insult to those who have died to preserve this Republic's sovereignty.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-30 10:06pm

SirNitram wrote:
Interesting leap in logic. They are considering other laws when they rule, so they are immediately putting that at teh top of the list and not considering anything of their normal constraints.

That is not the point at all. The point is that they are not constitutionally mandated to consider foreign laws; they are constitutionally mandated to rule on U.S. law in the context of the constitution and interpet the constitution. If you want to expand the court's mandate, this can certainly be done--pass an amendment to the constitution which does so. Hell, some people upset over this in this thread might basically support the idea! They're just upset that this Supreme Court Justice has admitted to doing something which is unconstitutional.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-30 10:08pm

AniThyng wrote: [China]"The People's Republic of China is not America. It should be ruled according to its own correct-thought people's laws."[/China]

I happen to completely agree with that sentiment, unless their doing so interferes with a treaty between our two nations (the basis of our current trade disputes).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-30 10:16pm

So, how do you put 'So, despite the fact the SCOTUS aren't entirely impartial and logical in deriving their rulings, we should hop up and down about daring to consider the impact of our decisions on a global scale?' into flowery speech? I figure those here who can convert 'Fuck the world, I only care about the USA' into such pretty terms can find a way.

On a more serious note, flowery language or not, sovereign right or duty or whatever you would like to dress things up as, do you seriously think anyone's lot in life will be improved by waiting for Congress to pass an amendment saying, in effect, the SCOTUS will be trusted to use discretion? Sure, an amendment would be great. Shall we get one for them to use their own preconceived notions of right and wrong, too?