Sharper then Jim Bowie’s shaving knife!
More momentum than that of John Henry’s 8lb sledge!
It’s a brief! It’s a post!
It’s David Bernstein’s first class fisking of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s words in this NYT article on “why SCOTUS Justices should take foreign law into account more”.
Ginsburg: Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?
Bernstein: Well, that depends. If, for example, the issue is interpreting a clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the law review article is about the text and history of the U.S. Constitution, and the “judge from abroad” is writing about the E.U. Constitution, or international norms, or moral theory, then there is very good reason one would “look to the wisdom” of the American professor, and not to that of the foreign judge.
I doubt very much that You will enjoy what else she has to say, but it is well worth your time to see what we’re going to get with whatever multi-culti Obama nominates, if he gets the chance.
Ginsberg and others like her are disgusting and traitorous beyond my ability to put it into words. I’m an attorney (though not a litigator or an expert on Constitutional Law), and I cannot figure out a single reason why a judge or even a Supreme Court Justice should look to foreign law or foreign opinions (no matter who writes such) in order to determine the Constitutional validity – or lack thereof – of any law in the US. THEIR JOB IS TO INTERPRET THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, not to make law based on some ever-evolving set of moral principles – and especially if that ever-evolving set of moral principles is foreign in origin.
To me, a clearer case could not be made for impeachment of ANY judge or Justice. Of course, we all know that with this House and Senate, such will NEVER occur. Communists are good at protecting their own from imperialists and capitalist oppressors, if nothing else.