Comments on: SEND GINSBURG TO THE HAGUE WHERE SHE BELONGS

By: JD

JD — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:57:58 +0000

Your understanding of law & legal precedent is remarkably childlike - surely you will enter the kingdom of heaven! while you’re down here though you might actually think before you start hammering at the keyboard. The Constitution itself looked to many - gasp! - foreign analogues, and our entire legal system (which is a separate matter from the Constitution, mind, not that you’re troubled by niceties) draws on pesky foreign ideas. It wasn’t born whole-cloth, nor did it reach some point of crystallization when it became immune to history, progress, etc. Foreign law and precedent were consulted, freely and duly, throughout the framing of all our laws. That’s because smart people don’t worry too much about whether they’re drawing their ideas from native or foreign resources. They’re more concerned with the actual value-content of the idea.

It’s a concept you might look into!

By: Monkey In Chief

Monkey In Chief — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:59:03 +0000

I belive the core problem that conversatives have with liberals on Supreme Court is that under liberals Americans have too many rights. Where the government gets the power to regulate private consensual sexual activity I’ve never been able to figure out. It’s not in the Constitution at least any section I can find.

This fear of too many rights extends to even accknowdoing the existance of foreign law by the US Constution. Those damn foreigners may have figured that hooking up electrodes to priosners gentials is cruel. The US should just cover its eyes from the awful sight of respect human diginity if that respect was discovered abroard.

There’s one thing I like about the argument though. Apparently, conservatives think it’s fine to impeach Sumpreme Court justices if they have opinions they don’t like. Since Thomas, Roberts and Alito all lied at the confirmation hearings plus spew opinions Democrats don’t like, I’m sure this nuthouse and it’s fellow conversatives won’t complain if a future Democratic Congress impeaches those three.

By: droo

droo — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:31:02 +0000

there’s a legitimate argument against using foreign law in american court decisions. but ginsberg is definitely not the most partisan member of the supreme court. scalia regularly appears in front of conservative groups, and has close relationships with many powerful members of the executive branch (see: dick cheney).
my problem is conservatives who have no problem with conservative judicial activism. look at the “special needs” exception to the fourth amendment, developed over the last 20 years by the conservative wing of the court, which has no textual basis at all. a principled strict constructionist would be just as opposed to this doctrine as lawrence v. texas, and would certainly never support as glaring an abrogation of state rights as bush v. gore.

By: Rick Sanborn

Rick Sanborn — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:04:40 +0000

According to Wikipedia, Justice Kennedy shares Ginsburg’s interest in a broader basis of jursiprudence than can be found solely in the U.S. Constitution. Is he a liberal? Besides, the idea that the Supreme Court’s conservatives are coherent in their adherence to their purported Constitutional ideals (i.e. states’ rights) is easily debunked just by looking at its decisions in Bush v. Gore.

By: K T Cat

K T Cat — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:29:44 +0000

Don’t send her to the Hague, send her to the minors! I had great fun with Ruthie over this at my blog.

Enjoy!

By: Ken McCracken

Ken McCracken — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:35:35 +0000

Nice strawman Jeffrey Harris, but no one is attempting to ‘forbid’ judges from citing foreign law.

Your second strawman is the idea that anyone is trying to ‘push reference to the Bible’ as you put it - quote for me any single case, anywhere in state, federal or Supreme Court case law where the Bible has been cited as law. I’ll save you the trouble - it doesn’t exist.

Your third strawman is that the objections to citing foreign law includes citations to common law, which is of course the foundation of our system.

When our colonies were founded, common law wasn’t foreign law, now was it. At least common law still comports with our system.

Your final pathetic strawman is that this is some kind of ploy designed to keep ‘wingnuts’ in power.

No, it is a ploy to keep the Constitution true, and to keep liberals from polluting it with nonsense.

By: LomaAlta

LomaAlta — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:27:43 +0000

Long discussion. Thanks.

The central issue to me is does a judge believe in the three branches of government, is he loyal to America and its Constitution, and will he follow these principles rather than imposing his own will.

Those who see the libs as more interested in using foreign law to circumvent the above principles are certainly correct.

By: Jeffrey Harris

Jeffrey Harris — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:10:01 +0000

Funny how so many of those who want to forbid US judges to look at foreign law are also just those who push reference to the Bible, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek , not the English of Texas and Alabama.

Then of course there is the US legal system itself, built on the English legal structure that goes back to Magna Carta, the first Bill of Rights. And most definitely, not American in origin.

As has been the case all along, the wingnuts are merely opportunists. Anything to stay in power.

jhh

By: scrapiron

scrapiron — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:07:53 +0000

This is just the latest of hundreds of ’shows of stupidity’ and ‘anti-american actions/remarks’ by the ACLU member of the SCOTUS. She can’t stand to think the the Communist members of congress (and there is several of them there under the banner of the democtatic crazy party) might get one ‘american bash’ ahead of her. What is unblievable is the number of votes she got from the idiots in congress when she was confirmed. Were they for real, or just playing a joke on America.

By: Ken McCracken

Ken McCracken — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:27:28 +0000

The Declaration of Independence is not law, Lindata.