Ruth Bader Ginsburg professed that ““I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” The article then states that [s]he added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court, as if the Supreme Court has any responsibility to be engaged in foreign decisions. 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.”
Again, the question must be asked where, in the Constitution, does it say that the US Supreme Court must weight foreign designs, decisions, or influences? It would seem members of our highest court in the land do not understand even the most simple of expectations: Interpret American law based on American law. This should not be a strange concept, there should be no confusion, and there should be no desire to be ‘popular’ overseas by having foreign courts cite our Supreme Court. We should not expect others to listen to us because they have their own courts and their own laws, and their own legislatures to make new laws. We should not listen to others because foreigners have no vested interest in the United States Constitution, they are not elected by the citizens of the United States, nor were they appointed by anyone from the United States. Foreigners have no standing in our law, thus citing them is as daft as can be.
Continuing to give weight to foreign decisions she goes on,“The police think that a suspect they have apprehended knows where and when a bomb is going to go off,” she said, describing the question presented in the case. “Can the police use torture to extract that information? And in an eloquent decision by Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel, the court said: ‘Torture? Never.’ ” The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was “that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity.” Then she asked, “Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?”
My question comes back, still unanswered: Where in the Constitution does it talk about torture? Cruel and unusual punishment is discussed, and that should be the limit. What Israel decides is for Israel to figure out. Citing Aharon Barak’s decision is worthless in the light of American law and has no persuasive value in the light of American laws on the books — which is what a justice should be looking at when formulating an opinion. Why not cite Saudi law about stoning homosexuals? To them stoning is not cruel or unusual, so is that of value when considering our laws? Of course not and a former ACLU lawyer like Ginsburg would be crying bloody murder if it were used to persuade, and rightfully so since foreign law is not the product of civil debate in America and enacted into law by an elected legislature in America. WORTHLESS.
With the election of liberals like President Obama we can look forward to more justices being concerned about how many foreigners cite their decisions in a world of seeminly fragile egos which need to be soothed by popularity contests instead of looking at the body American law in order to determine what is meant by, and what is consistent with, American laws. How much longer will Wee the People permit our laws to be outsourced to foreign countries?
Zeno Sees, Zeno Writes 