SCOTUS Considering International Law

[skb12172]

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/

[Netpackrat]

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

[scipioafricanus]

Yeah, it's a trap. "Oh look, no one else has something similar to the Second Amendment... so why should we?"

[Jered]

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.

[skb12172]

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.

[MarkD]

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]

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.

[Vonz90]

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hi ... self-rule/

Related

[skb12172]

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.