Sunday, April 12, 2009
The leftard assault on American exceptionalism continues
Justice Ginsburg advocates the citing of foreign law in American jurisprudence.
Amazingly, she can't even figure out why it's controversial.
That's retarded. Who gives a crap if the USSC is not cited in foreign cases? The USSC and Constitution represent the supreme law of the land. That is all the influence needed.
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa
E-Mail
Send To Phone
Print
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMy SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 11, 2009
COLUMBUS, Ohio — In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges, suggested that torture should not be used even when it might yield important information and reflected on her role as the Supreme Court’s only female justice. The occasion was a symposium at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University honoring her 15 years on the court.
Skip to next paragraph
Kiichiro Sato/Associated Press
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday at Ohio State University, where she talked freely about her work, past and present.
Related
Times Topics: Ruth Bader Ginsburg“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.
“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”
Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.
She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.
Fine. Go be a Canadian judge, Justice Ginsburg.
No, dumbass. It's not a passing phase. The reason we cited other courts in the early 19th century is because we had not yet developed over 200 years of case law of our own, grounded specifically in our constitution, and therefore had no choice but to resort to other legal traditions - specifically English common law - for guidance in interpreting U.S. law.
That is no longer the case.
Our hostility to foreign law cited in American jurisprudence is no passing phase. It is part and parcel of American exceptionalism.
Of course, if you're a numbskull libtard, you think that America is not exceptional at all.
Splash, out
Jason
Amazingly, she can't even figure out why it's controversial.
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.
“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”
Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.
She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.
That's retarded. Who gives a crap if the USSC is not cited in foreign cases? The USSC and Constitution represent the supreme law of the land. That is all the influence needed.
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa
Send To Phone
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMy SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 11, 2009
COLUMBUS, Ohio — In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges, suggested that torture should not be used even when it might yield important information and reflected on her role as the Supreme Court’s only female justice. The occasion was a symposium at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University honoring her 15 years on the court.
Skip to next paragraph
Kiichiro Sato/Associated Press
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday at Ohio State University, where she talked freely about her work, past and present.
Related
Times Topics: Ruth Bader Ginsburg“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.
“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”
Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.
She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.
The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
Fine. Go be a Canadian judge, Justice Ginsburg.
American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” She predicted that “we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts.”
No, dumbass. It's not a passing phase. The reason we cited other courts in the early 19th century is because we had not yet developed over 200 years of case law of our own, grounded specifically in our constitution, and therefore had no choice but to resort to other legal traditions - specifically English common law - for guidance in interpreting U.S. law.
That is no longer the case.
Our hostility to foreign law cited in American jurisprudence is no passing phase. It is part and parcel of American exceptionalism.
Of course, if you're a numbskull libtard, you think that America is not exceptional at all.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: law, supreme court, The Left
Comments:
<<“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.>>
By all means, Justice Ginsberg, lets consider some professor who is also unelected and unaccountable to our elected officials with the same disdain we should foreign judges who have neither legal standing in our justice system nor education in its meaning and traditions.
LTC D
Post a Comment
By all means, Justice Ginsberg, lets consider some professor who is also unelected and unaccountable to our elected officials with the same disdain we should foreign judges who have neither legal standing in our justice system nor education in its meaning and traditions.
LTC D
# posted by 
: 1:19 PM
: 1:19 PM
