Did you hear that thud?
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Squiggy said:Wrong....If it not specifically forbidden, its allowed. Not the other way around. Are you really pretending to believe that none of our laws are influenced by world view? Thats really hard to imagine.
Read the papers. Find the truth.
I never said the laws written by congress should or shouldn't contain influence from outside sources. I said, repeatedly, that the US Supreme Court has no authority to base it's interpretation of US laws on foreign rulings.
flavio said:
It doesn't have to expressly forbid it since it clearly states that they must use the Constitution as it's basis.
Squiggy, we had contact with outside sources when this was written. Since we didn't have movie houses they used US/state laws that were close enough to be used as a witness.
ris
New Member
i'm going to return to the original post where ginsburg cited an international treaty in deciding a recent race case. the use of treaty was declared later on as irrelevant by gonz as it must be ratified to be enshrined in law.
as the example of kyoto showed the ineligablity of non-ratified treaties then could be possible that ginsburg's reference was to an international treaty ratified by the us administration and therefore accorded all the full rights of law that it should.
i sincerely doubt that a supreme court justice does not know what is admissable and relevant under us law, using anecdotal evidence from comparitive foreign law would appear to be fine, and is the thrust of what most people here have been defending. gonz's point is a legalese one that may be without specific substance if my assertation on ginsburg's treaty is correct.
inferences that bashing the individual and not the text is a liberal pursuit on these boards is hardly well supported when you subsequently make personal statements about ignorance, gonz. you have become the pot calling the kettle black in this case.
my previous statements were made without individual reference as they were about the tect and the apparent dislike you had for the use of annecdotal reference to foreign law.
as the example of kyoto showed the ineligablity of non-ratified treaties then could be possible that ginsburg's reference was to an international treaty ratified by the us administration and therefore accorded all the full rights of law that it should.
i sincerely doubt that a supreme court justice does not know what is admissable and relevant under us law, using anecdotal evidence from comparitive foreign law would appear to be fine, and is the thrust of what most people here have been defending. gonz's point is a legalese one that may be without specific substance if my assertation on ginsburg's treaty is correct.
inferences that bashing the individual and not the text is a liberal pursuit on these boards is hardly well supported when you subsequently make personal statements about ignorance, gonz. you have become the pot calling the kettle black in this case.
my previous statements were made without individual reference as they were about the tect and the apparent dislike you had for the use of annecdotal reference to foreign law.
a13antichrist
New Member
Let me clarify the executing the mentally-retarded issue. The point wasn't that the constitution allows the execution of retarded people. The Constitution allows States to adopt the death penalty. What the decision was about is that those states are no longer permitted to pass the death penalty sentence mentally to retarded individuals.
And Gonz, if I say it should be legal to eat children for breakfast, can you honestly claim you're going to counter with the immorality of this, or are you going to call me a sick bastard?
Every one of these "touchy feely feel good liberals" you quoted has provided you with your counter-argument in spite of the idiocy of your claim - when you demonstrated a total incapacity to respond appropriately, it was then that you were designated close-minded.
We all understand that your point concerns holding the Supreme court to the law right down to the letter. In principle, fine, no problem. But certain states still have laws like "insulting a neighbour's mule merits a public beating in the town square". If you insist that the Supreme Court be held strictly to its laws, then you must also insist that all states enforce every one of their laws to the letter - if not, you're recognising that the laws of the United States have a certain degree of leeway in them.
Hence, you've got a choice. You can decide you're either incredibly pedantic , or selfishly hypocritical. Up to you. And whether we call you those names or not doesn't change in the slightest that your objection (but not necessarily your argument) is completely ridiculous.
And Gonz, if I say it should be legal to eat children for breakfast, can you honestly claim you're going to counter with the immorality of this, or are you going to call me a sick bastard?
Every one of these "touchy feely feel good liberals" you quoted has provided you with your counter-argument in spite of the idiocy of your claim - when you demonstrated a total incapacity to respond appropriately, it was then that you were designated close-minded.
We all understand that your point concerns holding the Supreme court to the law right down to the letter. In principle, fine, no problem. But certain states still have laws like "insulting a neighbour's mule merits a public beating in the town square". If you insist that the Supreme Court be held strictly to its laws, then you must also insist that all states enforce every one of their laws to the letter - if not, you're recognising that the laws of the United States have a certain degree of leeway in them.
Hence, you've got a choice. You can decide you're either incredibly pedantic , or selfishly hypocritical. Up to you. And whether we call you those names or not doesn't change in the slightest that your objection (but not necessarily your argument) is completely ridiculous.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Erm, I only have two things to say.
(1) I love America bashing threads. Always a great change of pace.
(2) The job of the Supreme Court isn't to rewrite the Constitution. We have a separate brance of government that handles that task. I have no problem with reevaluating the relevancy of the Constitution and making appropriate changes, but it should be done using the proper channels. The Supreme Court only needs one document upon which to base decisions. If international law is something that the Supremen Court should base decisions on, then it should come in the form of the legislative branch incorporating that law into the body of the Constitution.
Checks and balances. I don't understand why some people have a problem with (or lack of understanding of) this process.
(1) I love America bashing threads. Always a great change of pace.
(2) The job of the Supreme Court isn't to rewrite the Constitution. We have a separate brance of government that handles that task. I have no problem with reevaluating the relevancy of the Constitution and making appropriate changes, but it should be done using the proper channels. The Supreme Court only needs one document upon which to base decisions. If international law is something that the Supremen Court should base decisions on, then it should come in the form of the legislative branch incorporating that law into the body of the Constitution.
Checks and balances. I don't understand why some people have a problem with (or lack of understanding of) this process.
Well hell, here we go again
once more
WND
Global Atlanta
Sandra Day O'Connor said:
once more
Constitution said:
WND
Global Atlanta
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Gonz..Give it up. You cant tout the holiness of us killing people to shape the world economy and power map to our liking and then bitch about us considering the world's views on things....It doesn't mean that because something is illegal in Laos that its also illegal here. I don't understand your obsession with this...
