She said, "Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change." Justices, she added, "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.""International law is a help in our search for a more peaceful world," said O'Connor.
At least five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court align themselves with O'Connor's position that international law has a role in U.S. courts.
In 2003, Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the American Constitution Society her colleagues are looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and homosexual rights. In a decision earlier that year in a Texas case in which anti-sodomy laws were overruled, the justices first referred to the findings of foreign courts. The year before, the court said executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel, noting the practice was opposed internationally. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in 2003 to uphold the use of race in college admissions.
MSR said:We have a Supreme Court Justice who has been given only one task under our laws. That task is to make sure that every law created by our legislatures meets one test. That is the test of the Constitution. It is pointless for her to look at anything other than the constitution to draw arguments to rule on this one point.
More examples:Found here
While commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, the Court has clearly held that it is not wholly undifferentiable from other forms of expression; it has remarked on the commonsense differences between speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction and other varieties.17 The Court has developed a four-pronged test to measure the validity of restraints upon commercial expression. Under the first prong of the test as originally formulated, certain commercial speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of advertising is the First Amendment concern and if it does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed.18
It is definitely inappropriate for the Supreme Court to use International Law in the interpretation our laws. The Supreme Court's interpretation of our laws was intended to be determined by the Constitution and by English Common Law. Any other international source should not be used in the interpretation of our laws.
If particular international law is in line with our own legal precedent, yes. But, it should never be used to subvert our own legal standards. The issue in this particular debate is the Supreme Court's use of international law in its decisions, and I would agree with you that they may use the laws of other nations for clarification, but those laws should not be used for interpretation of our law. Nor should they be used to determine the constitutionality of our laws.Pacridge said:I whole heartedly agree with the position that America, as a sovereign nation, does not need to seek clarity in it's legal matter by inserting the laws of other nations. I think there have been times that we have been less than willing to follow international law and we should be more willing to do so, especially since we're one of the first nations to attempt to force other nations to abide to them.
Pacridge said:But I'm saying as a sovereign we shouldn't need to seek clarity from other nations in reagrds to our laws.
Pacridge said:I think there have been times that we have been less than willing to follow international law and we should be more willing to do so, especially since we're one of the first nations to attempt to force other nations to abide to them.
LiberalFINGER said:To stick to a single track of thought under strict conditions leads to stagnation. I would not assume that the Justice's in question are only looking at things to add or tweak, I would suspect that they are also looking at things that they want to avoid.
What you are saying, if observed by the justices, would have the effect of a single unelected person having the ability to amend the Constitution at any time.
This was never intended and must be avoided at all costs.
A tweak here, a small addition there might seem inconsequential. However, if over the past 200 years, justices had been making occasional adjustments, the case law upon which current decisions are based would be considerably different. The majesty of the Constitution lies in its consistency over time.
The musings of Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsberg would be akin to painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
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?