Terror so early in the morning - -

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin, Aug 8, 2003.

  1. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Mar 27, 2003
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Does this scare you??

    It TERRIFIES me - - - -

    Joseph Farah's well thought through commentary for today on WorldNetDaily. This is precisely why we are in such danger.


    Supreme Court internationalists
    August 8, 2003
    By Joseph Farah

    As if it weren't bad enough that the U.S. Supreme Court majority pays little heed to the U.S. Constitution, now it is becoming clear five or six members of the court are being influenced by the constitutions and courts of foreign countries.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg blew the court's cover in a speech to the American Constitution Society, explaining that her colleagues are looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and homosexual rights.

    In a decision earlier this summer in a Texas case in which anti-sodomy laws were overruled, the justices first referred to the findings of foreign courts. Last year, the court said executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel, noting the practice was opposed internationally. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

    In condescending language undermining the principle of American sovereignty, she said, "our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change." Justices, she said, "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

    Last month, Ginsburg, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour that included a conference on the European constitution. France outlawed the death penalty in 1981. Five members of the court attended the conference.

    "While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others."

    Ginsburg also tipped that the Internet is making it easier for the justices to keep up with the decisions of foreign courts.

    Back in July, a New York Times story explained that extensive foreign travel has made both Anthony Kennedy and O'Connor "more alert" to how their peers on other constitutional courts see similar issues.
    "Justices have always traveled, teaching or taking part in seminars," the story said. "But these are trips with a difference."

    The story said Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor and Kennedy have held extensive sessions with judges in Europe. Kennedy, it said, has met with numerous Chinese judges – both in the United States and in China. O'Connor has been involved in the American Bar Association's reform initiative in Eastern Europe.

    "With emerging democracies groping toward the rule of law, with colleagues on the federal bench volunteering for constitution-writing duties in Iraq, it is not surprising that the justices have begun to see themselves as participants in a worldwide constitutional convention," the New York Times story said ominously.

    "Worldwide constitutional convention?" No thanks.
    Justice Antonin Scalia has it just right: In his dissent on the Texas sodomy case, he wrote that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

    This is an extremely dangerous trend by these activist judges. Seemingly fresh out of any pretense of constitutional justification for their illogical and misguided decisions, now they are seeking justification in foreign constitutions and from foreign judges and attorneys. Comparing notes with foreigners might be a valid technique for legislators writing laws, but what insight do these folks have into the meaning, interpretation and intent of our own Constitution? What does any of this have to do with the rule of law here in America?

    Our founders fought a long and bloody war for independence from Europe and the Old World so that we could govern ourselves in a revolutionary new way. If Ginsburg, O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter are so enamored of the laws in foreign countries, they always have the option of resigning their lifetime appointments and moving themselves to one of those judicial paradises.

    Until they make that decision, I would advise them to spend more time talking to Americans and reading the U.S. Constitution.

    © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
  2. SouthernMoss

    SouthernMoss *Admin Tech Staff*

    Jan 1, 2003
    SW MS
    Terrifying, indeed. These renegade justices have completely ignored the will of the people that made their position possible.
  3. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about this yesterday. It scares the hell out of me.

    The whole purpose of creating an American Constitution was TO GET AWAY FROM EUROPEAN LAWS!!!!!!!!!!

    And now we are right back to square one.

    The really frightening thing is that these Justices swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Not any European or Chinese laws. The Constitution of the USA.

    And now that they have clearly broken that vow, what can we do? Absolutely nothing. We don't elect these people. They are appointed. If they piss us off, we can't revoke their positions. We have to wait until they've served their life terms before replacing them. This, in my opinion, is one of the frightening things about the judicial branch. While it is good on one hand, that the makeup of the Supreme Court is not subject to political whims like the other two branches, it also is bad because if you get some kooks in there it takes a long long time to get them out. And they can do a lot of damage while they're there.

    The original idea was that since they are not accountable to the voters, they should be accountable only to the Constitution. Great idea, in principle. But once they've clearly shown that they are no longer accountable to the Constitution, then we are helpless to do anything about it.
  4. Zigzag2

    Zigzag2 Guest

    [​IMG] to Justice Scalia!

    This hitting the news I pray, will be like a pebble being tossed into the ocean, resulting in a tidal wave that will drown the rest of those TRAITORS! :mad:
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Fort Hood Terror Victims Feb 15, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Reading the Constitution is Now a Terroristic Threat Mar 14, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum You a terrorist? Time for HR2159 Sep 27, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Domestic Terrorists Sep 4, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Why we are called potential terrorists. May 9, 2009

Share This Page