Darth Ginsburgh recently gave a speech in South Africa that has received a great deal of comment. In it, she showed herself to be a very petty, spiteful woman who is willing to take cheap and manifestly unjust shots at those who disagree with her judicial philosophy. It really knocked her down several rungs in my book, which I was kind of surprised by considering how low she already was in my book. It turns out that my ladder of respect has more rungs on its lower end than I was previously aware of. (It gets kinda dim down there, and my eyes aren’t so good, y’know.)
As part of the speech, she defended the indefensible way in which recent SCOTUS cases have relied on foreign law, which I think constitute grounds for impeachment for her and the other justices who drew on foreign law sources to overrule the will of the American people as expressed through the laws that had been democratically established in this country.
Jeremy Rabkin has an interesting look at Ginsburgh’s defense of the indefensible, which is quite insightful.
In part he point out:
In her South Africa speech, Justice Ginsburg tried to frame such practices as looking to foreign law to "add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions." It is much closer to the truth to say that what the Court is doing is shifting its perspective from America to the world at large, so that positions with less support in the United States can still be viewed–in a global context–as majority or dominant positions. Rather than looking to thoughtful analysis of "trying questions," the Court, in effect, takes a poll–on an international basis.
In all three recent cases where foreign opinion was cited, the Court faced the difficulty of explaining why it was abandoning contrary constitutional rulings from as recently as the 1980s. The Court tried to say that opinion had since changed, as some states had changed their laws on such questions as whether tests of mental deficiency would be relevant to imposition of the death penalty. Not enough states had actually changed their laws, so the Court, in effect, enlarged the count to include foreign jurisdictions. Red states and blue states might be evenly balanced at home but 25 nation-states of the European Union could tip the balance, if counted.
In one of its capital punishment cases, as Justice Ginsburg noted, the Court had received amicus briefs from Nobel Prize winners such as Jimmy Carter. What has this to do with legal analysis? It is simply a way of appealing from the views of American voters to those of electors for the Nobel Prize–the sort of people who regard President Bush as a reckless cowboy and Jimmy Carter as a distinguished statesman.
He also illustrates the problem in a way that may be of special interest to JA.O readers, considering how often the topic of canon law comes up here:
To see the partisan character of appeals to foreign authorities in this setting, one need only think of a close analogy. If foreign law, why not religious law? Why not the canon law of the Catholic Church? As it happens, the U.S. Supreme Court has cited "canon law" in more than two dozen cases over the past 200 years. Most of the references are entirely incidental, but a few cases in the early 20th century actually engaged with Church sources, among others, in wrestling with the meaning of "due process." More recent cases have insisted that secular courts cannot enter into disputed questions of church law when asked to determine claims about ownership of church property or tenure in religious office.
Suppose that Catholic or conservative justices began to regularly cite canon law on the most controversial constitutional disputes–on such matters as family law or medical ethics. These justices could insist, as Justice Ginsburg does, that such "foreign opinions are not authoritative" and "set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge" but simply "add to the store of knowledge." In today’s world, the protests from liberals would be deafening, because such soothing abstractions would be seen as disingenuous. To treat canon law as any sort of "persuasive authority" would be intensely divisive. The "foreign opinion" that liberals prefer has no more inherent relevance or authority, however. We could save a lot of needless dispute by agreeing in advance that all sides will play by American rules.
One can imagine the howl that would go up from liberals if the Court took this path, and it does indeed illustrate the circumvention of the will of the American people by drawing substance from law sources that the American people have not voted for.
But this is just one of the problems that Rabkin brings out in his essay, so
And of course when the liberal wing of the Supreme Court goes virtually off a cliff–as in citing foreign sources for their thinking or raping every American of the ownership of their homes (with 90% of Americans opposed to their decisions) the mainstream media drops these issues like they never happened–quite unlike how they hammer away at abortion and gay issues with left-wing propaganda at almost every turn.
“It turns out that my ladder of respect has more rungs on its lower end than I was previously aware of.”
that’s a great line, Jimmy.
at least jimmy gave it rungs!!! He has some Charity.
Any of you hear about Gonzales vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila? When the Philippines were a US possession, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving benefices, having to cite canon law.
Why is it that using foreign law in U.S. court cases only gets publicity from the MSM when it involves cases being thrown out in appeals because jurors cited the Bible (foreign law) when coming to a verdict?
Every time Justice Ginsburg cites foreign law she should be asked why she didn’t appeal to Vatican State law instead of whatever country she borrows from.
She could quote from the CIC, in theory, but not the catechism. I would think that unlikely because the CIC is the code for the universal church, not for the Vatican City State. I have never seen such a code, but I am sure that it exists. Jimmy? Ed?
So, my uncle was right when he suggested, as a police cadet, that child molesters should “have a millstone put around their neck and that they be cast into the sea.” He was just citing foreign law!
Ruth’s authority has been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against it is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
“Ruth’s authority has been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against it is rebelling against what God has instituted…”
So, it’s our Christian duty to support abortion, got that folks?
That’s insane.
It’s your duty to obey authority.
Abraham had the right to choose.
“It’s your duty to obey authority.”
Which means not ctiticizing it, right?
Right.
Furthermore, when she orders you to burn incense to the genius of the Emperor, you shouldn’t disobey, not because she will have you fed to the lions, but because it’s your duty to obey man rather than God.
“Which means not ctiticizing it, right?”
Sorry, that should be “criticizing”.
Criticism, like pro-choice, can have many meanings. Criticism, as in evaluation, analysis and investigation for the purpose of understanding, teaching, appreciation, is acceptable.
Is that the kind of criticism you intended?
Furthermore, when she orders you to burn incense to the genius of the Emperor, you shouldn’t disobey, not because she will have you fed to the lions, but because it’s your duty to obey man rather than God.
There is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men
That was Paul. Here’s Paul on Peter: when the high priest said, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name”, Paul reports that Peter and other disciples replied, “We must obey God rather than men!”
Perhaps Peter had decided that the high priest was not an authority on this matter. If so, that was Peter’s choice. Choosy people like Peter are pro-choice.
Man… I saw Darth and hoped it’d be a Star Wars post…
…and for an encore, our anonymous poster goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Did anybody else see “Mystery Men” several years ago? There was an older, sage-like character in it, who kept making these cryptic statements that sounded very wise and Confucian. Reminds me of our anonymous commenter. Eventually though, the others realized that the guy was just spewing out completely meaningless statements…
There was an older, sage-like character in it, who kept making these cryptic statements that sounded very wise and Confucian.
That was The Sphinx, played by Wes Studi. I think that the money quote went something like this:
The Sphinx: “And remember, you have nothing to fear…”
Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller): “But fear itself? Hmm?”
The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:
“Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”
THAT was meaningless.
I’m starting to think this guy has invented some sort of random spiritual platitude generator.
And, to use another Hitchhiker’s Guide reference-
“Sounds very significant without actually tying you down to meaning anything at all!”