[W]hy, if the Court's conclusions are based on the Constitution and laws of the United States, is "the opinion of the world community" a factor in the Court's conclusion?As if the Court needed a new excuse for wacky jurisprudence.
It does "lessen [the Court's] fidelity to the Constitution" when the Court gives the actions of foreign governments priority over the text of the Constitution, the laws enacted, in this case, by the legislatures of 20 states, and the clearly expressed preferences of the majority of Americans. With all due respect to the Court's majority, there is simply no coherent rationale for counting the "enlightened" opinion of foreign governments as a factor in Constitutional jurisprudence. . .
In reality, of course, the "international opinion" standard is appealing to some justices precisely because it gives them unfettered discretion to pick and choose the "opinions" that should influence American law. At the end of the day, the opinions the justices are really deferring to are their own. The new standard of "international opinion" is just one more vehicle that allows Supreme Court justices to make up the law as they go along.
Aristotle-to-Ricardo-to-Hayek turn the double play way better than Plato-to-Rousseau-to-Rawls
Monday, March 07, 2005
Rocket on Roper
More on the Roper decision from Powerline's John "Rocket" Hinderaker in the Weekly Standard:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment