|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 17, 2010 12:01:14 GMT -8
One trend, found almost if not entirely on the Left, is to urge the Court to consider foreign courts and foreign jurisprudence when reaching decisions. Those who have a more origianalist orientation believe that such a practice is quite inappropriate. I happen to fall into the latter category. That is true not because I have no respective for the legal systems of the countries. My objection is that foreign legal systems grow out of different cultures that may differ significantly from our own. And, of course, the Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not improve upon it by bringing in foreign ideas, no matter how worthy they may be. In any event, this issue is reflected in the latest Court decision. Justice Kennedy, who was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said both national and international consensuses supported the court’s ruling. (Italicized emphasis mine.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Justice Thomas disputed Justice Kennedy’s math, saying 11 nations seem to allow the punishment in theory. More important, he said, “foreign laws and sentencing practices” are “irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution.” www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18court.htmlAzWm
|
|