SCOTUS Considering International Law

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
Post Reply
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7223
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by skb12172 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:47 pm

I admit that when Justice Ginsburg mentioned this in the past, I freaked along with the rest of you. However, in this article Justice Breyer has made me, at least partially, rethink that position. Please take a few minutes and read the article. I'll be glad to hear your thoughts. He does bring up some good points, as technology will continue to make the world smaller and smaller.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ld/568360/
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.

User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 12585
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by Netpackrat » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:51 pm

It's a trap, don't fall for it. The problems he mentions can be solved without subverting the Constitution to international law.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Ass-op

User avatar
scipioafricanus
Posts: 988
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by scipioafricanus » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:26 pm

Yeah, it's a trap. "Oh look, no one else has something similar to the Second Amendment... so why should we?"
If there is a Stairway to Heaven, is there an Escalator to Hell?
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka

User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7300
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by Jered » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:35 am

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
umm...that isn't how the Constitution works.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7223
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by skb12172 » Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:32 pm

scipioafricanus wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:26 pm
Yeah, it's a trap. "Oh look, no one else has something similar to the Second Amendment... so why should we?"
Hm, damn good point.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.

MarkD
Posts: 3853
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by MarkD » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:31 pm

Having taken a couple days to consider the question: No only no but Hell no.

Reasons:

1) If Justice Ginsberg thinks favorably of it, it's not a good idea.

2) Laws reflect culture. American culture is not like European, South American, Asian, etc.

3) The function of the Supreme Court is to judge laws against the Constitution and ensure that they don't violate it. Not to judge laws against other nation's laws. The Constitution is the final standard against which American laws are judged, and what the rest of the world does be damned.

Do other nations laws affect how we do things? Of course, but that doesn't impact how OUR laws function.

BDK
Posts: 1364
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by BDK » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:01 am

That article is such a piece of flummery - although I suspect Breyer was an excellent lawyer.

He says "look to history, not as precedent, but for examples" - always been done in US law. He says "look to see how other jurisdictions are doing things" - again, always been done - but both of those are looked to, and thought of, in terms of lawyers discussing jurisprudence, and making suggestions to a legislature to write law.

The actual cases he mentions, are examples exactly what is intentioned in the USCON, when you have a direct intermingling of our legal systems.

Then, he starts going on about interpreting vague US law to comply with the law of other nations - and he's completely lost his damn mind. He's a judge, a political appointee, not a president nor the legislature. Kavenaugh will be an excellent addition to the court.

If Congress, and the President, wish to go through the Constitutional process of adjusting our laws, so that they can more easily interact with other nations, they may do so. That is constitutional, and they have the mandate of the electorate, and if people do not like it, they can change it.

9 political appointees do not have that right.

User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by Vonz90 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:20 am


User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7223
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: SCOTUS Considering International Law

Post by skb12172 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:04 pm

BDK wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:01 am
That article is such a piece of flummery - although I suspect Breyer was an excellent lawyer.

He says "look to history, not as precedent, but for examples" - always been done in US law. He says "look to see how other jurisdictions are doing things" - again, always been done - but both of those are looked to, and thought of, in terms of lawyers discussing jurisprudence, and making suggestions to a legislature to write law.

The actual cases he mentions, are examples exactly what is intentioned in the USCON, when you have a direct intermingling of our legal systems.

Then, he starts going on about interpreting vague US law to comply with the law of other nations - and he's completely lost his damn mind. He's a judge, a political appointee, not a president nor the legislature. Kavenaugh will be an excellent addition to the court.

If Congress, and the President, wish to go through the Constitutional process of adjusting our laws, so that they can more easily interact with other nations, they may do so. That is constitutional, and they have the mandate of the electorate, and if people do not like it, they can change it.

9 political appointees do not have that right.
This is written as a lawyer would write it. Law Review articles, laws of other jurisdictions, etc., are already considered when making a judgment. They are called Secondary Authority, though they do not carry the weight of Statute, Regulation, other forms of Primary Authority, or Case Law.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.

Post Reply