8/6     Supreme Court - Ginsburg: Int'l Law Shaped Court Rulings
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959020/posts
        Why limit ourselves to the EU, I think we should really
        push for diversity and incorporate decisions from North Korea,
        Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
        All you purported civil libertarians, this is the true
        danger to our republic.  If you want to invent law, do it
        through the legislature not activist judges.
        \_ There are worse things to worry about on the Supreme Court than
        \_ I love reading freeper links.  The comments remind me just how
           insane you freaknuts are.  Calling for lynchings and revolution
           over a justice saying she looks are what other countries are
           doing as guidance is hillarious.
        \_ there are worse things to worry about on the Supreme Court than
           Ginsburg.  Sadly.
           \_ Good point!  When there's more than 1 problem we should only
              look at them 1 at a time and ignore the rest!  I love that sort
              of purist linear thinking.  Are you running for CA Governor?
        \_ Not all international legal ideas are bad things.  Both
           Napoleonic law and English common law set useful precedents (in
           our case, what do you think our corpus of laws is loosely based
           on?)  And as for your "North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan" argument,
           why do you believe that we, at least in theory, have an independent
           judiciary?  Do you think there are laws governing every single
           possible facet of society and conduct, or is the judiciary actually
           supposed to have some leeway interpreting what's applicable in
           various cases?  And concerning Scalia's statement that "the court
           should not 'impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.'",
           look to yourself.  Don't you think that is highly ironic, given that
           Hilary Rosen has been appointed to help draft copyright law for
           Iraq?  I would be highly interested in your responses.  -John
                \_ Please refer to my aforementioned statement, but I will
                   reiterate.  You are welcome to whatever English
                   law not already included in the Constitution (although
                   how can you improve upon Constitution?) - but do
                   it through the legislative process.  Bypassing the
                   legislatures perverts the entire process.  In other
                   words, the process is just as if not more important
                   than the law, in part because of stare decisis.
                   One example, FDR implemented the New Deal by forcing
                   Justices to resign and stacking the court.
                   \_ You're still mad about that whole New Deal thing
                      aren't you
                     \_ The Constitution says nothing about the death
                        penalty, abortion, traffic tickets, and a whole slew
                        of other issues.  These are open to interpretation by
                        judges and courts.   You'll note the article's use of
                        the phrase "guidance"--there is nothing preventing our
                        judiciary, created under the Constitution (how can you
                        improve upon the Constitution?) from looking to other
                        legal, philosophical, ethical, societal, and political
                        models for ideas on how to interpret the law of the
                        land.  In addition, have a closer look at the article's
                        reference to treaties--the Constitution provides for the
                        ratification of treaties by the legislature--if the US
                        Congress and Senate accept our adherence to an intl.
                        treaty, the judiciary may very well use it as a source
                        of guidance for legal judgments, if that treaty does not
                        contravene the Constitution itself, according to the
                        Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret that
                        document.  -John
                        \_ Correct, however the SC isn't necessarily talking
                           about treaty based rulings but just whatever the
                           EU happens to be doing this week or next.
                \_ Look if congress wanted to say something about it, they
                   could have said it. the only reason why the supreme court
                   is involved in the first places is that congress was mute
                   about the subject.
                   \_ The Constitution does not leave for the SC the right to
                      invent new law where the Congress has failed to create
                      one, but only to interpret existing laws as written.
                      The SC is *not* a "fill-in-the-blank" law making body.
                      Or at least was never intended to be until recently.