The U.S. Supreme Court and Foreign Law

In the United States, we live by our laws and our values, not what foreign countries think.

There are reasons why America is the most free, most successful, most affluent, most powerful nation on earth–and none of them come from following the example of countries less so.

But some liberals on our nation’s highest court–including Bill Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg–feel they should be allowed to consult foreign law as they interpret our law and our Constitution.

Most foreign nations–even those that enjoy a relatively high degree of freedom–hold some legal views that are antithetical to American principles and the tenets of our Constitution.

Many nations are also much farther down the road of moral decay than we are–and for us to embrace those values would only hasten our own corruption.

More than anything, though, our Constitution is pretty plain about what it says.  Either a law is in harmony with what the Constitution says…or it isn’t.  Or the Constitution is silent on the issue altogether, which means the Supreme Court should have no opinion on the matter (not simply make one up out of “emanations” from “penumbras”).

Judges who believe the Constitution is clay in their hands, who believe foreign values have bearing on the United States Constitution–judges like Ginsburg–have no business being judges in America.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.