The Importance Of Securing The Court
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case of Kelo v. New London, Connecticut. They, in essence struck down the Fifth Amendment by disregarding the Takings Clause. Now, I have had people argue that the state of Connecticut had the right to seize this property. The problem is that’s a lie. The Fifth Amendment prevents such a move, and for all those that continue to disagree I contend you’re judicially-inept. The Constitution is the end-all, be-all when it comes to trump cards.
A state can’t forbid someone the right to own a firearm, nor prohibit their free speech. They can’t make illegal any religion, nor can they enter your home and search it without a viable warrant. Yes, states have the ability to make laws to govern their citizens, but those laws can’t contradict the Constitution; such a law would be deemed "unconstitutional". But, this isn’t the point. The point is we have a federal judiciary that is out of control, and all but unaccountable.
Let me present some quotes from some of the more "liberally-minded" jurists on the Court.
"The US Supreme Court has mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a spare five times and only twice in a majority decision...nor does the US Supreme Court note the laws or decisions of other nations with any frequency...When Justice Breyer referred in 1997 to federal systems in Europe, dissenting from a decision in which I also dissented, the majority responded: ‘We think such comparative analysis inappropriate to the task of interpreting a constitution.’ In my view, comparative analysis emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and human rights. We are losers if we neglect what others can tell us about endeavors to eradicate bias against women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups." —Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg is equally as judicially inept as the detractors I have dealt with for the last few days. She doesn’t understand we’ve already addressed these issues. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution possesses the Equal Protection Clause which specifically states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The rights of a US citizen are protected under this clause, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or ethnicity. That’s guaranteed, so I fail to see the logic in the comments made by Justice Ginsburg.
"The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards [in a 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick] did not take into account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations ten years later. Sexual Offenses Act 1967, Section 1. Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided, the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today’s case (Lawrence v. Texas). An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Court of Human Rights...To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent." —Justice Anthony Kennedy
First, let me start by stating—point blank—that I have no problem with homosexuals. What someone does in the privacy and confines of their home is none of my damned business. Second, citing the case from Northern Ireland bears no merit in the decision. The rights in Northern Ireland are much different from those in this country. His home had been searched. I’ll bet that there was no warrant to search that home, whereas here in America it is an absolute necessity to have a warrant. Moreover, why do judges seem to think that nations don’t have the right to make laws governing their citizens? Third, we don’t recognize the European Court of Human Rights. Know why? Because we live in America, under her laws, and her court system, not some kangaroo-court across the pond. Fourth, there is no right for homosexuals to engage in any sort of conduct. It’s not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, just like there’s no heterosexual right. A right—to help Justice Kennedy along here—is just that. If I have a right to my freedom of speech, I can demand it, and have it delivered to me. It doesn’t mean anyone’s going to listen to me, but I have a God-given right to speak. If I want to have sex with a female, and she says ‘no’, then if it were a right, I should be able to force the issue, yes? No. That’s called rape. It is asinine to assume that we have "rights" where we don’t possess them. Further, it is absolutely idiotic to assume that just because Europe does something, that we must follow in lock-step. Foreign law has no business within our court system, yet people like Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Kennedy continually look to foreign law when deciding cases.
But just wait, I’m not done yet.
"Although international law and the law of other nations are rarely binding upon our decisions in US courts, conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community should be at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts...While ultimately we must bear responsibility for interpreting our own laws, there is much to learn from other distinguished jurists who have given thought to the same difficult issues that we may face here...Nevertheless, I think that American judges and lawyers can benefit from broadening our horizons. I know from my experience on the Supreme Court that we often have much to learn from other jurisdictions...As the American model of judicial review of legislation spreads further around the globe, I think that we Supreme Court justices will find ourselves looking more frequently to the decisions of other constitutional courts, especially other common-law courts that have struggled with the same basic constitutional questions that we have: equal protection, due process, the Rule of Law in constitutional democracies." —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
International law has no precedent in our courts; at least not right now, they don’t. Should we decide to adopt a law or precedent they have, then there is the proper procedure we can go through. It’s called making legislation, and it is laid out—clearly and concisely—under Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution. "Law" is not made by jurists. It is made by the properly enumerated legislature of the federal and state governments. True, many other nations have dealt with issues we have yet to address, but that doesn’t give our judges free reign to adopt their ideas. The sole duty of a judge is to interpret our laws, not inject laws from other jurisdictions into their thinking. Case in point: Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The state of Texas had a law on the books banning sodomy. The Supreme Court, in it’s infinitesimal wisdom, decided to strike down the state law, and proclaim that being gay is a right. No, no, no. There is nothing within the Constitution addressing the issue, and the state of Texas had a law on the books about the act that homosexuals engage in. Rather than striking the law down, the case should have been remanded back to the state of Texas, and allowed the citizens of Texas to decide whether they wanted the law left intact or repealed—either through a direct vote, or lobbying their legislature. Instead the Supreme Court—the majority of it in that decision—opted to refer to international law to decide the case.
"The conclusion that it would offend civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than sixteen years old at the time of his or her offense is consistent with the views at have been expressed by respected professional organizations, by other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by leading members of the Western European community. Thus, the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute have formally expressed their opposition to the death penalty for juveniles. Although the death penalty has not been entirely abolished in the United Kingdom or New Zealand (it has been abolished in Australia, except in the State of New South Wales, where it is available for treason and piracy), in neither of these countries may a juvenile be executed. The death penalty has been abolished in [West] Germany, France, Portugal, The Netherlands, and all Scandinavian countries, and is available only for exceptional crimes such as treason in Canada, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Juvenile executions are also prohibited in the Soviet Union." —Justice John Paul Stevens
I’m sure the children that endured the cruelty, and death, in the gulag of the old Soviet Union were happy to know they couldn’t legally be executed. In this country we have varying degrees of crimes—misdemeanors and felonies—and with those crimes comes a punishment. If a person under the age of eighteen commits a heinous crime, such as murder, then there is a punishment to fit that crime. It can range from life imprisonment to death. That’s our society. We don’t believe in allowing vermin such as that continue to roam the streets, and we don’t believe in keeping them in jail, on the taxpayer’s dime, for an indefinite term—unless the crime is truly heinous, like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy. (Thank God Dahmer and Gacy are dead; Dahmer was killed in prison, and Gacy died of natural causes) But if it’s one murder, and the jury decides to choose the death penalty, then who is the Supreme Court to step in and rule that such a fate can’t be the punishment for someone under the age of eighteen. Do the crime, do the time, right? An adult crime calls for an adult punishment. That has been our rationale for quite some time in this country, so I fail to see where Justice Stevens logic is. It matters not if Europe has abolished it for such offenders. Good for them. But here, it is—correction—was still legal. It was, until a recent Supreme Court decision struck down such an idea.
The point of this particular blog is that these are four sitting USSC jurists, and these people are looking to foreign law to decide cases. The fate of the Court is reaching a fork in the road. We are, possibly, twenty-four hours away from watching one or more justices announce their retirements. People, like myself, feel that the courts are our final refuge. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton believed it to be so. (Yes, I’m falling back on my old standby)
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.
It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'' And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments;
Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
The courts were established to interpret the laws, and rule on matters of law. The Constitution is, in fact, fundamental law. The Supreme Court rules on matters of constitutionality, but that is a most impossible task if they continue to defer to international law. And when they do so, it spells disaster for the people. We escaped England, and fought for our independence, so that we would no longer be under their yoke; their laws. We established our own laws, our own Constitution, and it has served us well for 229 years.
What isn’t serving us well are the jurists within the judiciary. These four I cited above are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and with vacancies coming up on the Court, we need to make sure the right people are put on the Court. (For all the moonbats out there, those would be originalists—of which I subscribe to when it comes to my interpretations of jurisprudence.)
Justice Scalia, I believe, said it best:
"Equally irrelevent are the practices of the ‘world community,’ whose notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people. We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America we are expounding...Where there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may believe them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution."
That is why I say: "Give me six more Scalias for my Supreme Court." He is a first-rate jurist, with one of the sharpest constitutional minds in this nation. With six more minds like his on the Court, there might still be hope for this nation, yet.
Publius II
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case of Kelo v. New London, Connecticut. They, in essence struck down the Fifth Amendment by disregarding the Takings Clause. Now, I have had people argue that the state of Connecticut had the right to seize this property. The problem is that’s a lie. The Fifth Amendment prevents such a move, and for all those that continue to disagree I contend you’re judicially-inept. The Constitution is the end-all, be-all when it comes to trump cards.
A state can’t forbid someone the right to own a firearm, nor prohibit their free speech. They can’t make illegal any religion, nor can they enter your home and search it without a viable warrant. Yes, states have the ability to make laws to govern their citizens, but those laws can’t contradict the Constitution; such a law would be deemed "unconstitutional". But, this isn’t the point. The point is we have a federal judiciary that is out of control, and all but unaccountable.
Let me present some quotes from some of the more "liberally-minded" jurists on the Court.
"The US Supreme Court has mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a spare five times and only twice in a majority decision...nor does the US Supreme Court note the laws or decisions of other nations with any frequency...When Justice Breyer referred in 1997 to federal systems in Europe, dissenting from a decision in which I also dissented, the majority responded: ‘We think such comparative analysis inappropriate to the task of interpreting a constitution.’ In my view, comparative analysis emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and human rights. We are losers if we neglect what others can tell us about endeavors to eradicate bias against women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups." —Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg is equally as judicially inept as the detractors I have dealt with for the last few days. She doesn’t understand we’ve already addressed these issues. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution possesses the Equal Protection Clause which specifically states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The rights of a US citizen are protected under this clause, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or ethnicity. That’s guaranteed, so I fail to see the logic in the comments made by Justice Ginsburg.
"The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards [in a 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick] did not take into account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations ten years later. Sexual Offenses Act 1967, Section 1. Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided, the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today’s case (Lawrence v. Texas). An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Court of Human Rights...To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent." —Justice Anthony Kennedy
First, let me start by stating—point blank—that I have no problem with homosexuals. What someone does in the privacy and confines of their home is none of my damned business. Second, citing the case from Northern Ireland bears no merit in the decision. The rights in Northern Ireland are much different from those in this country. His home had been searched. I’ll bet that there was no warrant to search that home, whereas here in America it is an absolute necessity to have a warrant. Moreover, why do judges seem to think that nations don’t have the right to make laws governing their citizens? Third, we don’t recognize the European Court of Human Rights. Know why? Because we live in America, under her laws, and her court system, not some kangaroo-court across the pond. Fourth, there is no right for homosexuals to engage in any sort of conduct. It’s not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, just like there’s no heterosexual right. A right—to help Justice Kennedy along here—is just that. If I have a right to my freedom of speech, I can demand it, and have it delivered to me. It doesn’t mean anyone’s going to listen to me, but I have a God-given right to speak. If I want to have sex with a female, and she says ‘no’, then if it were a right, I should be able to force the issue, yes? No. That’s called rape. It is asinine to assume that we have "rights" where we don’t possess them. Further, it is absolutely idiotic to assume that just because Europe does something, that we must follow in lock-step. Foreign law has no business within our court system, yet people like Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Kennedy continually look to foreign law when deciding cases.
But just wait, I’m not done yet.
"Although international law and the law of other nations are rarely binding upon our decisions in US courts, conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community should be at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts...While ultimately we must bear responsibility for interpreting our own laws, there is much to learn from other distinguished jurists who have given thought to the same difficult issues that we may face here...Nevertheless, I think that American judges and lawyers can benefit from broadening our horizons. I know from my experience on the Supreme Court that we often have much to learn from other jurisdictions...As the American model of judicial review of legislation spreads further around the globe, I think that we Supreme Court justices will find ourselves looking more frequently to the decisions of other constitutional courts, especially other common-law courts that have struggled with the same basic constitutional questions that we have: equal protection, due process, the Rule of Law in constitutional democracies." —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
International law has no precedent in our courts; at least not right now, they don’t. Should we decide to adopt a law or precedent they have, then there is the proper procedure we can go through. It’s called making legislation, and it is laid out—clearly and concisely—under Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution. "Law" is not made by jurists. It is made by the properly enumerated legislature of the federal and state governments. True, many other nations have dealt with issues we have yet to address, but that doesn’t give our judges free reign to adopt their ideas. The sole duty of a judge is to interpret our laws, not inject laws from other jurisdictions into their thinking. Case in point: Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The state of Texas had a law on the books banning sodomy. The Supreme Court, in it’s infinitesimal wisdom, decided to strike down the state law, and proclaim that being gay is a right. No, no, no. There is nothing within the Constitution addressing the issue, and the state of Texas had a law on the books about the act that homosexuals engage in. Rather than striking the law down, the case should have been remanded back to the state of Texas, and allowed the citizens of Texas to decide whether they wanted the law left intact or repealed—either through a direct vote, or lobbying their legislature. Instead the Supreme Court—the majority of it in that decision—opted to refer to international law to decide the case.
"The conclusion that it would offend civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than sixteen years old at the time of his or her offense is consistent with the views at have been expressed by respected professional organizations, by other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by leading members of the Western European community. Thus, the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute have formally expressed their opposition to the death penalty for juveniles. Although the death penalty has not been entirely abolished in the United Kingdom or New Zealand (it has been abolished in Australia, except in the State of New South Wales, where it is available for treason and piracy), in neither of these countries may a juvenile be executed. The death penalty has been abolished in [West] Germany, France, Portugal, The Netherlands, and all Scandinavian countries, and is available only for exceptional crimes such as treason in Canada, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Juvenile executions are also prohibited in the Soviet Union." —Justice John Paul Stevens
I’m sure the children that endured the cruelty, and death, in the gulag of the old Soviet Union were happy to know they couldn’t legally be executed. In this country we have varying degrees of crimes—misdemeanors and felonies—and with those crimes comes a punishment. If a person under the age of eighteen commits a heinous crime, such as murder, then there is a punishment to fit that crime. It can range from life imprisonment to death. That’s our society. We don’t believe in allowing vermin such as that continue to roam the streets, and we don’t believe in keeping them in jail, on the taxpayer’s dime, for an indefinite term—unless the crime is truly heinous, like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy. (Thank God Dahmer and Gacy are dead; Dahmer was killed in prison, and Gacy died of natural causes) But if it’s one murder, and the jury decides to choose the death penalty, then who is the Supreme Court to step in and rule that such a fate can’t be the punishment for someone under the age of eighteen. Do the crime, do the time, right? An adult crime calls for an adult punishment. That has been our rationale for quite some time in this country, so I fail to see where Justice Stevens logic is. It matters not if Europe has abolished it for such offenders. Good for them. But here, it is—correction—was still legal. It was, until a recent Supreme Court decision struck down such an idea.
The point of this particular blog is that these are four sitting USSC jurists, and these people are looking to foreign law to decide cases. The fate of the Court is reaching a fork in the road. We are, possibly, twenty-four hours away from watching one or more justices announce their retirements. People, like myself, feel that the courts are our final refuge. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton believed it to be so. (Yes, I’m falling back on my old standby)
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.
It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'' And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments;
Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
The courts were established to interpret the laws, and rule on matters of law. The Constitution is, in fact, fundamental law. The Supreme Court rules on matters of constitutionality, but that is a most impossible task if they continue to defer to international law. And when they do so, it spells disaster for the people. We escaped England, and fought for our independence, so that we would no longer be under their yoke; their laws. We established our own laws, our own Constitution, and it has served us well for 229 years.
What isn’t serving us well are the jurists within the judiciary. These four I cited above are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and with vacancies coming up on the Court, we need to make sure the right people are put on the Court. (For all the moonbats out there, those would be originalists—of which I subscribe to when it comes to my interpretations of jurisprudence.)
Justice Scalia, I believe, said it best:
"Equally irrelevent are the practices of the ‘world community,’ whose notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people. We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America we are expounding...Where there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may believe them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution."
That is why I say: "Give me six more Scalias for my Supreme Court." He is a first-rate jurist, with one of the sharpest constitutional minds in this nation. With six more minds like his on the Court, there might still be hope for this nation, yet.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:48 AM
3 Comments:
Publius,
Wouldn't it be nice if we could clone Scalia? Talk about driving liberals nuts.
You are correct: These people shouldn't be on the court. Their occasional drift into the realm of international law has no excuse. If it is not in the Constitution, then the people have two options.
They can either lobby their state legislature to make or change a law. Or, they can lobby Congress to do the same. But the judges do not have "rule from on high" on that bench. They don't make laws. They don't enforce laws. They INTERPRET laws. I note that you cited Hamilton. I will, as well, and it is taken, ironically, from the same Paper you referred to--#78
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law."
Hamilton wrote it. He meant it, and so did the other Framers. The judiciary was to be the least dangerous of all the branches of the government. And it would be had it not usurped power from the other two.
What is worse than the judiciary making an "alliance" with either of the two other branches?
How about a judiciary that simply extends to itself extra-Constitutional powers, and uses them to their fullest extent.
That, by definition, is an oligarchy. Welcome to America, circa 2005; you have only the rights the Supreme Court says you have.
Mistress Pundit
The Asylum is a first rate site. The blogs are well research and written. It seems to me that the phrase, "Human rights" is right out of the UN. Our rights pertain to the individual. We value the individual in this country. Foreign decision have no place in our courts. As I recall, President Clinton signed on to be bound by the UN International Criminal court but the Senate didn't ratify it and President Bush rejects it. International Law, as I recall, is based on signed Treaties and the interpretation thereof mostly arising from the law of the sea.
Rawriter
Rawriter,
You are correct in your understanding of international law. The law cited by these justices revolve around not just "international law", but more precisely English law, German law, Italian law, French law, etc.
The jurists on the Supreme Court, like Justice Kennedy and Justice Stevens seem to enjoy picking and choosing their aspects of foreign law, and pay little heed to a little thing we lawyers like to call "precedent".
Justice Scalia has often shown that when someone goes back into the past, and looks as cases and laws, definitions and examples of previous precedent, a clearer understanding can be gathered as to what the intent behind the law is that is in contest.
The simple fact of the matter is this: Our judiciary has no business looking at international law (unless applicable), and foreign law. Applicable would fall under the Law of the Sea treaty, which we are a part of. But foreign law has no relevence in a US case, involving US law, and US citizens.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home