allsogreat
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 148
- Location
- cultural center of the universe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Thread Title should read: "Are Supreme Court Decisions to be based on International Law"
What is going on?....and where is it going?...lots of articles out concerning this....it's getting scary...H
Constitution takes hit from Supreme Court
Citing unapproved treaty is 'act of most fundamental reordering of legal system'
Posted: May 18, 2010
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
"The fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution possibly have been shoved one step closer to irrelevance by the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday cited as support for its opinion an international treaty that has not been adopted in the U.S. "
A flap over foreign matter at the Supreme Court
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
"WASHINGTON - Stepping into a battle between the liberal and conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican House members are protesting the court’s increasing use of foreign legal precedents in interpreting the Constitution."
It might be argued that foreign legal precedents make more sense than do the home grown variety?
I wasn't aware the Supreme Court as a whole body rendered an explanation of its opinion. I thought each Judge wrote a dissent or support for a ruling after the matter had been voted on, so wouldn't the citing of international law only be part of one judges opinion? Or am I mistaken?
It might be argued that foreign legal precedents make more sense than do the home grown variety?
Who is the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional?
It's the SCOTUS isn''t it?
So what is this about then?
But I thought that any consideration the SCOTUS made was by their existance constitutional? Hence the bipartizan confirmation, the lifelong appointments etc. And as far as decisions based on others, how is that different from decisions arrived at yourself. Does the simple fact of geography make it a bad decision, and as such prevent you from considering it?
Because thats just silly.
Even if it's a good decision?
What may seem like a "good decision" to some folks, still may not be Constitutional. If even one of the Supreme Court Justices base his decision on a Foreign Law, Foreign Precedent, or just a "good idea" that does not comply with U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution, then he / she has made a BAD Decision.....there is a reason we have a Constitution......
You make it sound so depressing.
You could make an argument that the Consitution blocking "good decisions" may be better in the long run because it acts as a check against populus and too rapid change.
If we assume that the SCOTUS is conservative in its intrepretations and we assume the current Consitution is a good thing, although not the best because times change.
Then we force ourselves to go through the lengthy Consitutional amendment process so we all collectivly can make sure we really want to go through with that change so we don't make sweeping and rapid gov't changes with the same amount of thought that we use to pick tiolet paper.
So in other words it acts as a stabalizer to prevent "hipster politcs" where things change as fast as fashion trends and no one can get anything done in an ever changing mess.
What may seem like a "good decision" to some folks, still may not be Constitutional. If even one of the Supreme Court Justices base his decision on a Foreign Law, Foreign Precedent, or just a "good idea" that does not comply with U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution, then he / she has made a BAD Decision.....there is a reason we have a Constitution......
I think I agree with pretty much every thing you said.
All decisions, in my opinion, should be conservative....changing times does not negate the Constitution.
I'm not sure I exactly agree with what I wrote, I just thought it was interesting legal theory.
You are kidding right?
Changing times allow the constitution to grow. Thats why the amendment process exists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?