GOP Bloggers :: Liberal Judges Quietly Subvert American Sovereignty

Supreme Court Voids Juvenile Death Sentences | Main | Senator Byrd Crosses The Line

March 01, 2005

Liberal Judges Quietly Subvert American Sovereignty

In January, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer debated the citation of non-American opinion in United States Supreme Court decisions. To most, this would seem preposterous. But, just as liberals who cannot get what they want at the ballot box seek what they want from activist judges, we now have activist judges subverting American sovereignty to world opinion. Once again, the prerogatives of the citizenry, manifested through their elected representatives, are trampled by the imperial judiciary.

The imposition of a supranational popularity contest on the American court system took a step forward today with the decision on juvenile death penalty. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.

International opinion may make Justice Kennedy feel good, but it has no place in an American court of law. The right (in both respects) judicial appointments are now more important than ever. We now need strict constructionists not only to refrain from legislating from the bench, but also to adhere to the American Constitution, American statutes and American precedents. Liberal judges who would rather ignore the sentiments of the American people in search of global popularity do our nation grave harm.

Posted by Jonathan R. on March 1, 2005 06:25 PM

Comments

I agree, not only do they inject foreign law and opinion into their decisions, but they are also, once again, trempeling on state's rights! If I am not mistaken, and I am no lawyer, punishing crimes committed in a particular state is an issue taken up by the respective state's court system.

We do have the power and the right to seek the impeachment of certain judges. I think it is about time we did just that.

Posted by: THN at March 1, 2005 07:26 PM

International opinion may make Justice Kennedy feel good, but it has no place in an American court of law.

That there is even a debate about this is beyond absurd. I'm betting there are at least 4 Justices on the SCOTUS that share Justice Kennedy's view. I wonder what it would take to bring impeachment proceedings against them.

Posted by: Retired Spook at March 1, 2005 07:37 PM

The ruling I'm not too interested in, but the fact that they had to look at international opinion? Give me a break! They're the highest court in the land. OUR LAND. They need to look here for their answers, not overseas where they have completely different sets of ideas and laws.

Posted by: Gozer at March 1, 2005 09:35 PM

The advise and concent role is not as lofty as The Grand Keegle Byrd would have us think. I seem to recall a Senate debate back in 1964 over the Civil rights act passed that year.... in sopite of the extended debate tactics employed by Senator Byrd.

Oops. He didn't mention THAT one, did he? I guess his voice never did quite recover from the 14 hours and 13 minutes he held the floor, arguing against that act.

From the Senate Website:

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

I guess he must have forgotten that one. It's a bitch being an old racist.

Posted by: Bithead at March 2, 2005 12:18 AM