O'Connor extols role of international law

[ScreamingEagle]

Sandra Day O'Connor, a Supreme Court member, is saying that we should recognize more international law. Do we seriously need some new judges or what?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1153&slug=Scotus%20O'Connor

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-115212-8210r.htm

 

[Avatar4321]

Sandra, i think its about time to retire.

We do not submit our soviergnty to the International community.

 

[theim]

I'm getting pretty sick of people saying we have to accept international law as our own to join the "international community".

Here is the only law the US must abide by.

 

[-Cp]

I'm getting pretty sick of people saying we have to accept international law as our own to join the "international community".

Here is the only law the US must abide by.

Amen brutha!

 

[Merlin1047]

This is the part that raised my hackles:

" Later this term, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of executing juvenile killers. The case has attracted wide interest overseas, with many foreign nations filing briefs pointing to international human rights norms as a justification for outlawing the practice."

Where the hell do other nations get off filing a damn thing with our supreme court in this matter? And how do the practices of other nations have any bearing on whether or not any given aspect of American law is constitutional or not. The first supreme court justice that cites foreign law in making any decision should be thrown off the court for malfeasance.

 

[dmp]

I'd rather see a dictatorship than a ultra-liberal supreme court.

 

[dilloduck]

The crazy bitch needs to retire and go work at the Hague then! :bat:

 

[KarlMarx]

Sandra, i think its about time to retire.

We do not submit our soviergnty to the International community.

No, it's time to impeach Sandra Day O'Connor for refusing to uphold the Constitution of the United States as she promised to do the day she was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge.

 

[Avatar4321]

The first supreme court justice that cites foreign law in making any decision should be thrown off the court for malfeasance.

Already happened although i dont remember who it was.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

This is complete bullshit. I hate the whole concept of international law.

But if that's how things are going to be, then it should work both ways. There are some shitty laws in some other countries and I think they should be changed.

 

[KarlMarx]

This is complete bullshit. I hate the whole concept of international law.

But if that's how things are going to be, then it should work both ways. There are some shitty laws in some other countries and I think they should be changed.

The mindset of the 21st century leftists is that nationalism is bad. Internationalism is good. Furthermore a world government is a good thing. That's why they like the UN and that's why O'Connor makes those idiotic statements. The goal is world wide socialism with cradle to grave government. Principles are to take a back seat to winning the struggle to acheive this goal.

The Right believes in the sovereignty of nations (so that there will be accountability) and the rule of law. The Right believes that there is such a thing as Right and Wrong and that these things are immutable. Principle should never take a back seat.

 

[acludem]

Clearly you all have a serious lack of understanding of just what "International Law" really is. Most of what is called International Law is actually accepted custom. Another large chunk consists of treaties signed by the U.S. and ratified by the Senate (i.e. the Geneva Convention), the rest comes from the U.N. which member nations agree to do certain things for membership. Sandra Day O'Conner is right, we should abide by treaties we sign, follow accepted international customs, and hold up our end of the U.N. agreement. What's so terrible about that???

acludem

 

[KarlMarx]

Clearly you all have a serious lack of understanding of just what "International Law" really is. Most of what is called International Law is actually accepted custom. Another large chunk consists of treaties signed by the U.S. and ratified by the Senate (i.e. the Geneva Convention), the rest comes from the U.N. which member nations agree to do certain things for membership. Sandra Day O'Conner is right, we should abide by treaties we sign, follow accepted international customs, and hold up our end of the U.N. agreement. What's so terrible about that???

acludem

True, we should abide by the treaties that we have signed AND have been ratified by the Senate. However, that is as far as it goes.

Some times, some justices want to rule a certain way, and not being able to find anything to justify their rulings in American law, turn to the laws of other countries instead.

That is not upholding the Constitution of the United States and yes, there IS a lot wrong with that.

The justices have a duty to this country to base their decisions on American law not on their whims and prejudices.

Furthermore, the U.N. wants to undermine American soverignity by some of their treaties. One example is CEDAW, the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Fortunately, past administrations have steadfastly refused to sign this piece of crap. Among other things that CEDAW allows is for the UN to send people into this country and censor what ministers, priests, rabbis and so on can preach in their churches, temples and mosques. In other words, the UN would be able to walk all over the First Amendment. And that's for starters.

Perhaps you feel comfortable having an unelected body of officials and bureaucrats who have no accountability make decisions that affect you, but I certainly do not. That is not democracy, but a dictatorship.

Many nations sign U.N. treaties and do not abide by them. Also the U.N. is a corrupt organization that doesn't abide by its own resolutions (as has been demonstrated by its Oil For Food program and its stance against Saddam Hussein). Considering both of those factors, it is not in our national interest to worry about the UN

America is for the Americans and should be. Too bad you and your fellow leftists don't see it that way.

 

[acludem]

Once again, you are failing to understand...International Law has absolutely NOTHING to with laws in other countries. Got that?

The UN has problems, but on balance it behooves the U.S. get back into the leadership position that Bush has abdicated by intentionally splitting us off from our allies.

acludem

 

[tim_duncan2000]

The UN has problems, but on balance it behooves the U.S. get back into the leadership position that Bush has abdicated by intentionally splitting us off from our allies.

Except for the allies who are actually helping and were not on the take.

 

[KarlMarx]

Once again, you are failing to understand...International Law has absolutely NOTHING to with laws in other countries. Got that?

The UN has problems, but on balance it behooves the U.S. get back into the leadership position that Bush has abdicated by intentionally splitting us off from our allies.

acludem

Once again YOU are failing to understand or just refusing to. The duty of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. We are only bound by laws that have been ratified by Congress. Justice O'Connor has clearly stated that the Supreme Court should look to the laws of other countries e.g. Pakistan when arriving at decisions.

When Sandra Day O'Connor uses the laws of other countries (or other International Law not ratified by Congress), she is not upholding the Constitution of the United States and in my opinion, that is an impeachable offense.

As for your assessment of the UN. You have the gift of understatement. To say that the UN has "problems" is being generous. Consider that tens of billions of dollars that was the duty of the United Nations to oversee wound up in the pockets of Saddam and his followers, crooked contractors from France, Germany and Russia and the government officials of those countries. That kind of dough doesn't disappear because of incompetance, that kind of dough disappears because of collusion. That kind of dough disappeared because of corruption at high levels of the United Nations.

You also have a strange concept of what an ally of the United States is.

Our "allies", the French, Germans and Russians were lobbying the United Nations to lift sanction on Saddam before GWB put his foot down. If we hadn't done anything, it is entirely possible that Saddam would have been opearating without international sanctions by now.

Allies like France, Germany and Russia who were helping Saddam Hussein avoid the consequences of the sanctions imposed on him by the United Nations.

Allies like France, Germany and Russia who were being paid off by Saddam in return for helping him divert money from the UN Oil For Food program

Allies like Russia who may have been involved in transporting WMDs and other contraband weapons into Syria.

With allies like that, who needs enemies?

 

[Merlin1047]

Clearly you all have a serious lack of understanding of just what "International Law" really is. Most of what is called International Law is actually accepted custom. Another large chunk consists of treaties signed by the U.S. and ratified by the Senate (i.e. the Geneva Convention), the rest comes from the U.N. which member nations agree to do certain things for membership. Sandra Day O'Conner is right, we should abide by treaties we sign, follow accepted international customs, and hold up our end of the U.N. agreement. What's so terrible about that???

acludem

Clearly you have a serious reading comprehension problem. What do treaties, the UN and "accepted custom" have to do with the Constitution of the United States? THAT is the document which the Supreme Court is empowered to interpret.

The Supreme Court has no authority whatever to rule on issues regarding treaties with other nations, "accepted practices" of other nations, or the wishes of the UN.

And what is so terrible about that is the fact that once again we have a judge seeking to exceed the scope of her authority by using sources other than the US constitution for the basis of her decision.

 

[Merlin1047]

The UN has problems, but on balance it behooves the U.S. get back into the leadership position that Bush has abdicated by intentionally splitting us off from our allies.

acludem

I understand where you're coming from. It has been the policy of the previous Democratic administration to sell out the best interest of this nation in order to placate those who wish us ill. That includes not only nations such as China, North Korea and Iraq but also France, Germany and India.

It must come as quite a cultural shock to you and the rest of your liberal contemporaries to have a president who is willing to stand up for the best interests of the US and tell those who would see us diminished to go to hell.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Maybe we need another Amendment to make absolutely clear to liberals that our Constitution is the ONLY and HIGHEST law of our land.

(And while we're at it, legislate a way to get rid of judges such as Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.)

 

[KarlMarx]

(And while we're at it, legislate a way to get rid of judges such as Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.)

There already is a law to get rid of judges such as Ruth Bader-Ginsberg .... Supreme Court justices can be impeached just like Presidents can. The thing is most people aren't aware of that.

The day judges and lawyers become afraid of being sued, thrown in jail and losing their jobs just as often as the rest of us. The day those freaking jokers walk in fear of the law or being brought up on ethics charges. The day those godless whores have to look over their shoulders in fear. THAT day will be a good day for this country. That day people will be able to truthfully say "with liberty and justice for all"