Ginsburg And Foreign Law In Interpreting Our Constitution

Posted on March 16, 2006

We covered Scalia’s view on the use of foreign law in the Courts. Now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks up.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg gave a speech in South Africa last month, which, for some reason, is just now being publicized. Ginsburg’s speech was titled “A Decent Respect for the Opinions of [Human]kind.” In it, Ginsburg argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. Ginsburg did not try to hide the partisan nature of this issue; at one point, she referred to “the perspective I share with four of my current colleagues,” and she specifically criticized Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and the two bills that were introduced in Congress in 2004 and were broadly supported by Republicans. And she indulged in an outrageous bit of demagoguery, suggesting that those who disagree with her are somehow aligned with Justice Taney’s infamous defense of slavery in the Dred Scott case.

In the speech this ACLU moonbat argues:

To a large extent, I believe, the critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court decisions. We refer to decisions rendered abroad, it bears repetition, not as controlling authorities, but for their indication, in Judge Wald’s words, of “common denominators of basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed.”

She also reveals a death threat.

Ginsburg revealed in a speech in South Africa that she and O’Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate “patriotic” killing of the justices. Security concerns among judges have been growing.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter joked earlier this year that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. Over the past few months O’Connor has complained that criticism, mainly by Republicans, has threatened judicial independence to deal with difficult issues like gay marriage.

Liberal blog America Blog tries to tie this into the entire religious right.

That got me wondering. I knew the religious right regularly went out of its way to dehumanize gays and lesbians to the point where Katie Couric, our own Dorothy in real life, asked in the days following Matthew Shepard’s murder whether the religious right’s anti-gay rhetoric didn’t add to a climate of hate that overall helps encourge violence against gays.

Glenn Greenwald:

Bush followers first gained power as part of an ugly and raucous fight. There will be few limits on what many of them will be willing, and eager, to do in order to hold onto it. Removing dissident judges, imprisoning political opponents, and calling for a “civil war” is a nice start.

Pam’s House Blend joins in.

Try as they might to divorce themselves from threats like these, mainstream Republican political figures have been leading the way in suggesting violence as a means of intimidating judges around the country, including those sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

So let it be known, that I condemn Ann Coulter’s remarks, and do not agree with violence as a means to solving judicial activism on the part of the left. We do agree with J Robb who says, “If this is her thought process, I hope she sleeps while cases are argued in front of her more often.” And we most definitely agree with Paul Mirengoff who says….

It won’t happen, of course, but I think there’s a case to be made for impeaching Justice Ginsburg.

And we most definitely do not believe in Ginsburg’s judicial philosphy. We believe in Scalia says it best.

That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break.

But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.

They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it’s the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.

Liberals cannot get their policies passed through normal legislative and political means, so they resort to unchecked judges and justices to make these decisions for them. This is called Judicial Activism. And it stems from not reading the actual text of the Constitution, but rather finding hidden meanings which don’t actually exist.

This is a trend that no only needs to be curbed, it need eliminated. Those on the left will say that they wish to protect civil liberties. This contention is nothing less than liberal smoke and mirrors. A scare tactics which brings up images of intolerable times in our nation’s history. This is not so.

If the actual text of the Constitution is followed, no one has anything to fear. Intolerance existed because there were individuals who read “hidden meanings” in our founding document. And ironically, they were Democrats.

Rightwing Nuthouse suggests:

I think we should start a grass roots movement to get Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointed to the World Court at The Hague. Judging from her remarks made at a conference in South Africa last month, she sure as hell doesn’t belong within 3000 miles of the Supreme Court building:

Heh, I’m on board.

We most definitely do not wish death upon Ginsburg. Threats of violence are not the answer to our problem. as the Anchoress notes….

That’s always wrong, deplorable, frightening and insupportable. These are never laughing matters, even if they are not considered “credible.” I know because I got one in 1985 for criticising Ronald Reagan. Got another one recently for daring to criticise Cindy Sheehan. There are unstable nutjobs on every side of every issue. Still, there is something - a whiff of political exploitation - in Ginsberg’s mention of them. A rather noble and martyrish, “see, I’m enlightened and the conservative nazis want to kill me.”

There is current legislation that has been introduced called the Constitution Restoration Act. This legislation would put an end to using foreign law for interpreting and applying the Constitution. In section 201 of this bill it states:

In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

This legislation needs to get passed. We urge all of you to contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them to support the Constitution Restoration Act. Find your Representatives here. Find your senators here.
hat tip: Michelle Malkin
Others: Demonrats
Ace In The Hole.

» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, News, Supreme Court

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Ginsburg And Foreign Law In Interpreting Our Constitution”

loosechangevideo on March 16th, 2006 11:09 am

Great Post, but… there is more in the details than you might be explaining.
Watch This Video it is important.
rightwingprof on March 16th, 2006 3:43 pm

So let it be known, that I condemn Ann Coulter’s remarks

I don’t. It’s hyperbole. Over the top. That’s what she does. It’s too bad the liberals don’t see the utter hyprocrisy in all this, given all the moveon and daily kos calls for violence against Bush and Cheney.
Jay on March 16th, 2006 9:11 pm

Hyperbole or not, I don’t think death threats are funny or anything to joke about. So we will just have to disagree on that one Rightwing Prof.