Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court Rejecting Authority of World Court
Over the past few years many Americans have become deeply concerned that judges have begun relying more and more on foreign law to decide questions of U.S. constitutional law. One doesn’t have to be a constitutional scholar to object to foreign laws and foreign courts -- laws that are not enacted by our democratic government and judges who are not selected as our Constitution provides -- ruling on Americans’ rights and the powers of American government. These concerns are largely well founded, and reflect the increasing degree to which modern constitutional adjudication has become altogether unmoored from the text and original understanding of the Framers.
Yet an even bigger issue was before the Supreme Court this Term. In Medellan v. Texas, the issue was not simply whether U.S. judges should consult foreign law to guide their decision-making; instead, the central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the United Nations’ World Court has the legal authority to bind the courts of the United States. In other words, the issue was whether decisions of the World Court are superior to those of the Supreme Court, and whether Americans will be governed by the decisions of foreign judges in The Hague.
Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right. . . .
Labels: SupremeCourt
2 Comments:
Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right. . .
Thankfully? You mean that one third of the highest, most powerful court in the USA, is OK with applying foreign law without constitutional and legislative ratification?
I'm thankful that disaster was averted, yes, but horrified that we have cretins like this on the SCOTUS!
How can we fire these baboons?
How can an institution which accepts criminal dictatorships as having equal standing to democratic nations possibly be considered to have any credibility in a democracy?
Post a Comment
<< Home