You’re from where? Well then, we don’t care what you think.
So today I find myself reading an article about our only (present) female Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The article appeared in the New York Times and discussed Justice Ginsburg’s propensity for considering foreign law when rendering decisions in cases that come before her. She was discussing these views at Ohio State University as part of a symposium honoring her time as a Justice. (see article here)
Her defense of this practice was stated thusly:
“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 law school professor?”
Well, here’s a reason: Neither of those documents holds any legal value in the Supreme Court of the United States. How about that? An article in a law review could be about anything, written by anyone, and hold firm to any set of standards, depending on the subject and the jurisdiction… so that narrows it down to… well, everything. Just because some law school professor writes it doesn’t mean that it should be given consideration by a Supreme Court Justice as part of their particular jurisprudence. Besides, if law professors are like other types of professors, then there are plenty of stupid, arrogant, self-involved, liberally twisted, loudmouth Law Professors to go around. Hardly a winning combination.
Reason number two? Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution states in part:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;”
Um, that pretty much explains where the limits lie. The Court is allowed to preside over cases that arise under OUR laws and Constitution. I don’t see anything in those sentences (or the surrounding text) that would give any credence to the ability of a foreign judge of any level to have a say or even the chance of influencing the outcome of a case under US law. Foreign judges consider cases under THEIR laws and are not beholden to the rights that we as US citizens are granted. So, to use their opinions as part of any consideration or citation in a US case before the Supreme Court is at best foolish. Justice Roberts stated it best when he said:
“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.”
Amen to that. Foreign law has NO PLACE in the courts of the United States on ANY level, much less the highest level.
Justice Ginsburg says that citing the foreign case and considering oneself bound by it are two different issues. I beg to differ. Why the hell would you bring it up in the first place if you did not feel somehow bound (or at least deferential) to that decision and it’s underlying argument? So what if you like what it says. I like creamed spinach, but I don’t bring it up in discussions on tax policy because I think it should be considered as part of the argument.
During the same appearance, she used the Canadian Supreme Court as an example of a Court that is cited abroad, both widely and frequently. Presumably, that is meant to be a good thing. So people like to quote the Canadians, eh …and your point is?
I don’t live in Canada, or in any of those countries that might feel beholden to the moral values and legal structures of our frozen neighbors to the north. I live in the US, under US law and the US Constitution. (Well, at least for a little while longer.) Her subtending argument for the example of Canada being cited abroad more that the US Supreme Court topped off the touchy-feely, liberally twisted logic. Check out this winner of a quote:
“You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
HEY, RUTH! You weren’t appointed to the bench to be cited abroad!! We don’t give one sweet rat’s rear what they think of our court system in Bangladesh or Belize. If they want to quote Canada, let ‘em. If they want to climb trees in orange pants while their doing it, good for them. Your job is to apply the US Constitution and the laws derived from it to the cases that are brought to you under the above stated confines of the same document. At the same time, it is not the purpose of the US Supreme Court to attempt to mold the decisions of foreign courts. They have their laws and their own founding beliefs. If they want to cite foreign law, that is their perogative.
This whole issue goes back to the basic liberal tenent that if you’re not getting along with everyone, YOU must be doing something wrong. Anyone who was ever picked on in grade school by a bully knows how sound that logic is… Some people are just jerks and they like it that way. At some point, you have to realize that being the most “popular” person, country or government stopped being important in High School.
Look, if you want to be a US Supreme Court Justice, do it using OUR laws and precedent set in OUR courts. If you want to make a living being quoted around the world, quit your job and go work with Al Gore. He’s a twisted liberal loony toon and people around the world quote him like a god.