So much for Sotomayor's disavowal of using international law for American law

Few people will be paying attention to her written comments. What mattered most was when the cameras were going. Changing her answer now prevents any of the fireworks that could have occurred during the hearing. From Human Events:

During committee, she backpedaled on the use of international law in decision making. Having done a 180, she is now circling back for a full 360 degree turn to her original position. This troubling flip-flop should give Republican Senators grounds to vote no. . . .

During her testimony before the Senate, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Judge Sotomayor about that. Her response? “I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American statutes. I will use American law, constitutional law to interpret those laws except in the situations where American law directs the court.” . . .

a. What did you mean by the word “use”? Did you mean that you would not consider foreign law at all in interpreting the Constitution or statutes, or merely that you would not cite foreign law as the basis for your legal conclusions? b. Would foreign laws regarding gun ownership be relevant to you in your efforts as a judge to interpret the Second Amendment? c. If foreign laws are not relevant, how do you distinguish when it is appropriate to use foreign law to assist in the interpretation of the Constitution and when it is not? Isn’t foreign law then simply a vehicle by which judges indulge their own policy preferences? d. If foreign laws are relevant, are the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments the only places in your mind where foreign law is relevant in interpreting the Constitution?

Sotomayor’s response should send cold chills down the backs of gun activists and senators. She wrote back:

In my view, American courts should not “use” foreign law, in the sense of relying on decisions of foreign courts as binding or controlling precedent, except when American law requires a court to do so. In some limited circumstances, decisions of foreign courts can be a source of ideas, just as law review articles or treatises can be sources of ideas. Reading the decisions of foreign courts for ideas, however, does not constitute “using” those decisions to decide cases.

What she is saying now is that she does, despite her Senate testimony, agree with Justice Ginsburg. Note her caveat now. She will not rely on “decisions of foreign courts as binding or controlling precedent.” That is not what was asked.