I am quite amused by the hysterical dolts over at G's blog. Those of you who know what I do for a living would be quite ammusedat the idiocy of self proclaimed legal experts.
The United States is an independent country. Our foreign policy is determined by the President of the USA. The only relevant factor in determining if something is legal is in US law and the Constitution. The whims of those at the UN do not determine what is legal.
Foreign law has no relevance in US law with some rare exceptions in immiration law on the family side. For example the fact that capital punishment is outlawed in country X has no relavance to US law. The only basis for deciding US law is the Constitution. Precedent in and of itself would have us still following Dred Scott and other bad precedents.
Moreover, the notion that judges are sacred and above the law is folly. Man famous judges have been senile, corrupt and there was a notorious klansman on the Supreme Court. I wouldn't want a block robed ACLU freak like Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a courtroom unless she were a defendant.
I hope Hillary is stupid enough to cite the UN as a moral authority. Gomer Kerry proposed placing the US military under US command in a book before he ran for office. Kerry ran from those statements in interviews.
I will let the defenders of Castro and Chavez pray at the altar of the UN. It seemed the UN has done a great job saving lives from the predations of bug eyed Communists, not. Moreover, if anyone ever tried to impose Marx on me I would pick up a gun and fight till the end. I am a man of peace, but history is littered with 1000 Katyn's. So far only Caucescu paid for crimes commited in the name of Marx.
13 comments:
Beak, a question about stare decisis. Do you advocate the wholesale overturning of precedent.
Does that overturning constitute an "activist judge"? Now myself, I don't have a lot of respect for judges, they're just schmucks with opinion like the rest of us. But Ruth Ginsberg has seldom overturned precedent. In fact she is a very cautious jurist as opposed to the others.
Just what constitutes an "activist judge" in your opinion. Now, we know that an activist is someone who's decisions you don't agree with but I wonder if you can take a stab at a rigorous definition.
Ducky
Introduction of foreign law into cases outside a limited section of immigration family law is activist.
The question of the Constitutionality of capital punishment should be decided on US law alone. The laws of Sweden, Saudi Arabia or Lichtenstein are irrelevant.
Case precedent alone is not a basis for law. A freak like Ginsburg decides the age of consent laws should be scrapped. Courts are not bound by precedent alone, nor by incrementalism.
While it could be argued that it is unconstitutional, segregation policies still established a precedent in the South once. Everything is relative to the circumstances of each case and cannot be oversimplified on the level that Ducky pontificates.
Precedent can be immoral and unconstitutional because it is established by human beings. (But is helpful to determining whether or not a citizen believes an act is legal or not, which would be an important factor to contemplate in criminal proceedings.)
It’s a different story when a judge evaluates the Constitutionality of a certain precedent so the Constitution does trump precedent.
Gomer Kerry proposed placing the US military under US command in a book before he ran for office. Kerry ran from those statements in interviews.
I take it that you meant "UN command" not US.
Hundreds of US military men and women each year are "assigned" under UN command, wearing that powder blue beret, without realizing that whatever branch of service they belong to, they are technically in violation of their contracts. I actually fought a case against the US Navy and won the case, because I was sworn in to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION and its peoples against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nothing mentioned in my contract about being assigned under the UN.
NOTHING is said about our armed forces men and women having to serve under the UN. Therefore, it is a violation of contract. So, if you know of any armed forces members who are serving the UN, technically they can walk out from the contract.
THIS may be why Kerry wanted to place our armed forces under UN control - but he would have had to change enlisted and officer contracts reflecting that.
Just what constitutes an "activist judge" in your opinion.
A hippy that needed not only a bath, but an education, and then went to law school?
So freedomnow and Beak both support "activist judges" (as long as they aren't active on like gay rights). Fine, I just wanted to get that straight.
The Supreme Court and courts in general ought to throw out most of the stuff that comes before them. The courts were never set up to create law (legislate) but to resolve disputes. We have a fully functioning framework for resolving disputes and bringing in foreign law is just an end run attempt to legislate.
I like what Mark Levin says about it, we should just ignore them. If an issue rises to the level of public interest, then our elected representatives should speak for us, not unelected, unaccountable judges. Bush has done three things right (and not much else): He cut taxes, took military action against islamists and appointed judges and justices like Janice Rogers Brown, Sam Alito (I think) and John Roberts (I think).
Could you place links here for "G" and "sonia" for those of us who don't know who they are. I would like to read posts and comments that you are referring to.
This "international law" thing is something that I come up against on a regular basis and if someone is seriously proposing that the UN should solve our illegal immigration mess, I want to take a verbal shot at them.
Thanks
Anon
Ducky, you are probably the most insincere blogger I know. Regardless of what response is given to your questions, you conclude that the answer is what you assumed it to be from the onset. Like many leftists, you don't communicate. You just put a megaphone to your anus and attempt to drown out everyone else and asphyxiate them simultaneously.
Ducky, how are you going to get it straight if you are so gay?
I tell you what, if you want to get married to another man I will sign a petition on your behalf.
RS, you pegged that one!
Stare decisis, is a legal term abused by liberals when they don't get the results they want.
Take the Roe V Wade case, stare decisis was totally ignored while "emanations of the penumbra" ruled the day.
(More like nocturnal emissions of an activist Supreme Court).
RS,
Actually, you're falling into fallacy by assuming a leftist such as Ducky is capable of rational thought in the first place. You attribute malice where there is none.
The guy's just an idiot.
People who assaulted pregnant women or intentionally caused miscarriages in pregnant women through violence or poisons were put to death under British common law. The basis of our laws and from which the concept of stare decisis is derived is the British common law.
When does stare decisis matter?
Post a Comment