Foreign Law Fuelling Judicial Activism

[Diuretic]

Yes. I want to live where Law is BY the people (via elected reps) and FOR the people (right of Referendum).

A mix of representative democracy and direct democracy gets confusing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Of course. You can vote for a closed or an open society. Your choice.

NOT citing foreign law doesn't make us a closed society. What an idiotic statement you've made.

 

[CockySOB]

So you think the American legal system should be hermetically sealed?

'Sup Diuretic!

Your question requires some clarification, please. The American legal system encompasses all three branches of government.

The Legislature writes the laws, and if their consituency supports looking to foreign nations for guidance, then by all means let them do so.

The Executive enforces the laws, and provided their actions meet their authority, I have no problems with observing other nations in case they come up with a more effective method of enforcing the laws than we have. (Note: I'm speaking of actionable methods which law enforcement can use, differentiating from the legislative actions which undoubtedly are different.)

Or are you speaking about how the Judiciary rules on existing US laws? In that case, no. The Judiciary should rule on the laws without influence from foreign courts. The laws the judiciary rules on are the US codes, not foreign laws. If the other branches implement changes following their Constitutional authority, the Judiciary must determine the constitutionality of such changes, and rule on the case according to the US laws.

 

[Diuretic]

NOT citing foreign law doesn't make us a closed society. What an idiotic statement you've made.

You've just demonstrated that you approve of the shutting down of democratic institutions.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You've just demonstrated that you approve of the shutting down of democratic institutions.

blah blah blah. Congress's only oversight over rengegade courts is to defund them. A judge citing foreign in law is EXPRESSLY NOT a democratic institution. He's actively circumventing our democracy. I believe your brain may be in upside down.

 

[Diuretic]

Or are you speaking about how the Judiciary rules on existing US laws? In that case, no. The Judiciary should rule on the laws without influence from foreign courts. The laws the judiciary rules on are the US codes, not foreign laws. If the other branches implement changes following their Constitutional authority, the Judiciary must determine the constitutionality of such changes, and rule on the case according to the US laws.

That's just a repudiation of international treaties. That was my point about sealing yourselves off. I mean I don't give a rat's arse about your domestic legal system, it can be whatever you want it to be, I won't be subject to it so I don't care. But I was thinking of your closing yourself off from the rest of the world.

 

[Diuretic]

blah blah blah. Congress's only oversight over rengegade courts is to defund them. A judge citing foreign in law is EXPRESSLY NOT a democratic institution. He's actively circumventing our democracy. I believe your brain may be in upside down.

You believe that the Congress should control the courts?

 

[Bonnie]

So you think the American legal system should be hermetically sealed?

YES!! I do based upon the will of it's own citizenry.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You believe that the Congress should control the courts?

I believe there should be, and that there is, a mechanism for shutting down insane judges who are citing foreign law. Do you believe judges should have no oversight on them whatsoever?

 

[Diuretic]

YES!! I do based upon the will of it's own citizenry.

And how is the will of it's own citizenry expressed?

 

[Diuretic]

I believe there should be, and that there is, a mechanism for shutting down insane judges who are citing foreign law. Do you believe judges should have no oversight on them whatsoever?

Tut-tut. There are insane judges and there are those that might cite foreign cases. They aren't necessarily the same.

Oversight on judges. Yes, I do believe there should be. A legislature should have the ultimate control over any judge but that control should be jealously given by the people.

 

[CSM]

That's just a repudiation of international treaties. That was my point about sealing yourselves off. I mean I don't give a rat's arse about your domestic legal system, it can be whatever you want it to be, I won't be subject to it so I don't care. But I was thinking of your closing yourself off from the rest of the world.

Actually, once a treaty is signed and ratified, it becomes law. That is entirely different and I suspect you know that. Your statement about not caring about our domestic legal system is exactly the point...by citing foriegn law as precedent (not treaties) some judges are making US citizens subject to foriegn laws. I am waiting for the first judge to step up and hand down a sentence of bodily mutilation (cutting off a hand) for robbery based on precedence in foreign law. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it...

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, once a treaty is signed and ratified, it becomes law. That is entirely different and I suspect you know that. Your statement about not caring about our domestic legal system is exactly the point...by citing foriegn law as precedent (not treaties) some judges are making US citizens subject to foriegn laws. I am waiting for the first judge to step up and hand down a sentence of bodily mutilation (cutting off a hand) for robbery based on precedence in foreign law. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it...

I don't want to be rude but it sounds ridiculous because it is. The US, like my country, signs treaties it can live with and those treaties don't affect domestic law greatly. There are reasons for that. The US, like Australia, is a federation and domestic law is pretty well protected because of that. In the UK, for example, England and Wales has a national legal system and when they signed up to be part of Europe their domestic laws melded in with European laws (eg human rights legislation) simply because it was a national system. I don't know if they saw it coming but anyway it happened. Treaties signed by the US and by my country are effective at federal level only due to the nature of our legal systems.

A US court, like an Australian court, is never subject to foreign law except where a treaty intervenes (and as I have pointed out it is in the rare atmospheres). A US court, including the US Sup Ct is not bound to follow foreign law or judgements (same as in Australia). It can choose to follow, or be advised, but it's not binding. The binding nature of a case has to be from a superior US court and so it is in my country. My point was that we can look elsewhere for good ideas and pick and choose and not be obligated.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't want to be rude but it sounds ridiculous because it is. The US, like my country, signs treaties it can live with and those treaties don't affect domestic law greatly. There are reasons for that. The US, like Australia, is a federation and domestic law is pretty well protected because of that. In the UK, for example, England and Wales has a national legal system and when they signed up to be part of Europe their domestic laws melded in with European laws (eg human rights legislation) simply because it was a national system. I don't know if they saw it coming but anyway it happened. Treaties signed by the US and by my country are effective at federal level only due to the nature of our legal systems.

A US court, like an Australian court, is never subject to foreign law except where a treaty intervenes (and as I have pointed out it is in the rare atmospheres). A US court, including the US Sup Ct is not bound to follow foreign law or judgements (same as in Australia). It can choose to follow, or be advised, but it's not binding. The binding nature of a case has to be from a superior US court and so it is in my country. My point was that we can look elsewhere for good ideas and pick and choose and not be obligated.

Nope. Our judges should only consider laws passed by our representatives. Our country is not their personal science project.

 

[Diuretic]

Nope. Our judges should only consider laws passed by our representatives. Our country is not their personal science project.

I'd be surprised if the minds of the justices were as closed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yes. I want to live where Law is BY the people (via elected reps) and FOR the people (right of Referendum).

Well it sure as hell ain't happening here anymore. It's a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations with legislator for sale to the highest bidder. And for President, we have a man more intent on subverting the COstitution than protecting it. "We the People..." seem to just be along for the ride.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It seems that the only time some folks here object to "judicial activism" is when it doesn't fall in line with the right wimg-nut agenda.

But more to the point, as closely interconnected and interdependent as the world is now, it is nothing short of hubris to ignore international law in the formation of US legal precedent. Also, much of that international law is based upon treaties which the US is signatory to.

The ossification of social structures is the beginning of the end for any society. And the legal system is not exempt. If these institutions lack the flexibility to change and adapt to the world as it changes, it's like slamming the brakes on a dangerously overloaded semi going down a steep grade. While it looks big and safe and invulnerable before that point, lulling those in and around it into a false sense of security. When reality intrudes the result can be disasterous.

But reality doesn't seem to make much of an inroad into the reasoning of the right wing-nut fringe.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It seems that the only time some folks here object to "judicial activism" is when it doesn't fall in line with the right wimg-nut agenda.

But more to the point, as closely interconnected and interdependent as the world is now, it is nothing short of hubris to ignore international law in the formation of US legal precedent. Also, much of that international law is based upon treaties which the US is signatory to.

The ossification of social structures is the beginning of the end for any society. And the legal system is not exempt. If these institutions lack the flexibility to change and adapt to the world as it changes, it's like slamming the brakes on a dangerously overloaded semi going down a steep grade. While it looks big and safe and invulnerable before that point, lulling those in and around it into a false sense of security. When reality intrudes the result can be disasterous.

But reality doesn't seem to make much of an inroad into the reasoning of the right wing-nut fringe.

Listen dipstick, the will of the people is circumvented when our judiciary cites irrelevant foreign law. Our constitution has mechanisms for change; they're ample and appropriate. You're a sad excuse for an american.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Listen dipstick, the will of the people is circumvented when our judiciary cites irrelevant foreign law. Our constitution has mechanisms for change; they're ample and appropriate. You're a sad excuse for an american.

Gosh...This administration seems all too eager to ignore the "will of the people" when it runs contrary to its ideological bent...Oregon's "death with dignity" act...medical marijuana...the war in Iraq...

And don't go calling me a "...sad excuse for an american..." until you learn what it means to be an American, you anti-semitic little sot.