Monday, April 13, 2009

Won't miss Ginsburg

This is why I will not miss Justice Ginsburg when she is no longer on court, though I shudder to think what sort of individual Obama might appoint in her place.

6 comments:

cbullitt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JoeCollins said...

on commenting - I have some Dem friends who read this so I like to keep it relatively civil. The Saudi thing was just this far [---] over the line.

Samay said...

So is it okay for the Pennsylvania supreme court to cite cases from New York? The legal systems are pretty different, going all the way back to colonial days.

I don't see anything wrong with citing well-written cases from abroad, so long as they deal with identical or very similar matters. Multinational contract law would be a good example. For strictly American issues like free speech or criminal issues, I don't think foreign courts have that much relevance. Still, good ideas are good ideas.

Anonymous said...

Yeah - and looking at her actual comments what she's saying is that a compelling MORAL argument (rather than procedural) should be able to carry equal bearing regardless of it's source. I think her comments about needing more women on the courts because she's lonely is daft - but that's just my point of view. I think the broader point that she makes that insular navel gazing without considering the broader global context undermines American Influence. I would say the Federalist Paupers is fairly selective in it's focus (just as a liberal rag would do of comments by Thomas or Roberts). But what do I know...
Matt

Larry said...

Q: So is it okay for the Pennsylvania supreme court to cite cases from New York?
A: Yes, because they are both states within the same country, and as such are both within the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution. Therefore the legal systems between the two aren't so different as you might imagine since they both share a common history.
The rest of the world, not so much.

JoeCollins said...

(Larry, Samay's a lawyer, and Matt's dad is a laywer, so tread carefully.)

Ginsburg (and others) seem to assign a particular virtue to the SCOTUS's influence abroad and the general internationalization of law.

Matt I think this is the section you were referring to:
The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was “that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity.” Then she asked, “Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?”She shouldn't be persuaded because it has nothing to do with American law. Maybe it's the right thing to do, but that justification she just cited has zero basis in the US Constitution and is solely a reflection of her policy preferences.