Foreign law is entirely irrelevant to the exploration and determination of the Constitution’s meaning, unless. . . well unless you think the Constitution has no real meaning and is a trampoline from which the judges may launch themselves into all manner of argument, investigation, and philosophical debate. If you think it is impossible or simply foolhardly to determine what the Constitution means (and think your job is to look for intriguing ideas, interesting notions, and cultural trends to impose on the populace) then foreign law, or novels for that matter, are perfectly relevant.
But which law? Saudi Arabian on women’s rights? I think Justice Ginsburg would recoil in horror. Irish or Italian law on separation of church and state? Preposterous. It becomes obvious that foreign law soon devolves into a sort of grocery shelf from which individual justices can pluck whatever looks “good” and disregard the rest.
I think I have a novel I’d like Justice Ginsburg to use in her next foray into non-USA sources for jurisprudential input.
Or maybe she could just use the Torah, definitely a source of input from a foreign Court.
April 17th, 2009 11:50 am
Judges are the most dangerous group of people in the U.S. Government. It is time for some accountability. The difficulty is that this country is a Republic based on the rule of law not Democracy base on the rule of the majority; and the “wing nut” judges decide the law. If this was 16th century America, revolution would be in the air.
April 17th, 2009 1:16 pm
Of course, in 16th century America it wouldn’t have been weird for judges to make rulings based on “foreign” precedents… 🙂
April 17th, 2009 3:13 pm
You got me. In my potification I got the wrong century. Meant 18th and should have said 19th or 20th. But you get my point 🙂
April 17th, 2009 3:14 pm
And then I meant pontification.
April 17th, 2009 3:30 pm
I fyou don”t make typos your thincking too slo.