Supreme Court says no killing teens!

[Bradylama]

I didn't catch your second paragraph, to which I'll say that it is still irrelevent. Legal decisions made in foreign nations are based on laws and precedents which have not been made in the United States.

This is not the International Court, it is an American Court.

Judges should make decisions based on the cases presented, and possibly the decisions made by previous judges in the same court system.

It doesn't matter whether or not other nations protect civil liberties better, their decisions should have no bearing on American law.

 

[Brother None]

That seems somewhat recalcitrant. You're basically saying US law can only change based on events within the US, which could very well make it grind into a standstill at some point.

I don't see your problem with international influence if it can be positive. And no, I don't mean political international influence.

Also, if you argue this case is true for the US, then why doesn't it hold true for countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? Why do they have to adapt their laws?

 

[Ozrat]

Heck, ain't the right of free speech an amendment?

Close, but no cigar.

If you look at the Constitution closely, you will notice that the first ten Amendments are actually the original Bill of Rights. The first amending Amendment is Amendment XI.

 

[Bradylama]

Also, if you argue this case is true for the US, then why doesn't it hold true for countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? Why do they have to adapt their laws?

Because we invaded them, and we're in a position to dictate terms.

I don't see your problem with international influence if it can be positive.

Because "positive" influence is subjective. Laws inspired by foreign rulings may or may not be positive, because they were made from a foreign perspective, with foreign law, not an American one.

If a case has a strong enough legal or constitutional argument, as this did, there shouldn't even be a reason to try and reference foreign law.

Yet its not even clear if that's what they did. Kennedy clearly stated that they had to consider international opinion which makes it a purely political sentiment.

 

[Brother None]

Because we invaded them, and we're in a position to dictate terms.

Dude wtf?

Because "positive" influence is subjective. Laws inspired by foreign rulings may or may not be positive, because they were made from a foreign perspective, with foreign law, not an American one.

"Positive" influence is still subjective when it's made from an American perspective, byatch, I think Bush amongst others has proben that.

If a case has a strong enough legal or constitutional argument, as this did, there shouldn't even be a reason to try and reference foreign law.

Why not? If foreign law set precedent, then you can either pretend that had nothing to do with it or accept it.

Yet its not even clear if that's what they did. Kennedy clearly stated that they had to consider international opinion which makes it a purely political sentiment.

He meant opinion in a legal sense.

 

[Bradylama]

Oh come on, Kharn. You know that the statement was purely political in nature. Why else would he have mentioned it?

Dude wtf?

Dude, its like, totally the truth.

Iraqi and Afghan law are being forced to adapt to a more westernized style because they have to accept the ruling authority (us), as they have no means of organized resistance.

Its the same conquerer/vanquished relationship that's been played out for millenia.

"Positive" influence is still subjective when it's made from an American perspective, byatch, I think Bush amongst others has proben that.

Well, obviously, from an American perspective it would be subjectively positive for us.

Why not? If foreign law set precedent, then you can either pretend that had nothing to do with it or accept it.

Only foreign precedent shouldn't apply to the United States, because those precedents are based on laws that the US does not abide by. Should we ban smoking and gum chewing because its illegal in Singapore? They've set an international precedent. And their city is relatively clean. So how could it be anything but positive?

 

[Brother None]

Oh come on, Kharn. You know that the statement was purely political in nature. Why else would he have mentioned it?

'cause he's a judge?

Iraqi and Afghan law are being forced to adapt to a more westernized style because they have to accept the ruling authority (us), as they have no means of organized resistance.

Its the same conquerer/vanquished relationship that's been played out for millenia.

From a practical viewpoint this is true, I fail to see how you can support this on a theoretical or moral basis. If they should subject to superior laws, why shouldn't the US? "Just because it's biggest" is, like, so Machiavellian.

Well, obviously, from an American perspective it would be subjectively positive for us.

"American perspective"? Now you all agree? And you mean anything from inside the US is always ok with all Americans, including the 50% who don't vote and the slightly less than 50% that voted against the prez?

Only foreign precedent shouldn't apply to the United States, because those precedents are based on laws that the US does not abide by. Should we ban smoking and gum chewing because its illegal in Singapore? They've set an international precedent. And their city is relatively clean. So how could it be anything but positive?

Yes, you should, but that's besides the point.

Again you're acting as if the only option is for the judgiez to look at the situation abroad, go all "OMFG THAT ROCKS" and adopt it.

Let's be realistic here, American law has been adopted more or less all over the world. If some people adopt it better than Americans, than what's wrong with positive feedback within the confines of the Constitution?

 

[Bradylama]

"Just because it's biggest" is, like, so Machiavellian.

Well, I am a bit of a Machiavelle.

My primary concern is the well being of myself and those around me. That includes the country that I live in. The entire world can burn for all I care, so long as me, my loved ones, and my nation survive.

Selfish? You bet your ass.

'cause he's a judge?

Judges don't usually consider international opinion when making a ruling. They're not supposed to. (at least ours aren't)

"American perspective"? Now you all agree? And you mean anything from inside the US is always ok with all Americans, including the 50% who don't vote and the slightly less than 50% that voted against the prez?

Let's not confuse things, here. The American legal system has made many unpopular rulings over the course of the country's history. They were, however, in America's best interest, because those decisions were made with American law in mind. Women Suffrage, for instance, faced strong opposition from other women. Yet it was still made into a Constitutional Ammendment, because they made the better case.

American Law, American perspective. Because that is what we're talking about, here, Law, not politics. In fact, my whole point has been that the Supreme Court has failed to keep politics independant of law.

Yes, you should, but that's besides the point.

No, its precisely the point. Because you think it should doesn't necessarily mean that it will, nor that it should to Americans.

Let's be realistic here, American law has been adopted more or less all over the world. If some people adopt it better than Americans, than what's wrong with positive feedback within the confines of the Constitution?

Because there should be no pandering to foreign bodies from the Supreme Fucking Court. By saying that our laws are susceptible to foreign pressure, we've essentially given the hint that foreigners can dictate our law with diplomatic pressure.

Its not like they based their decision entirely on foreign precedent, but they shouldn't have to consider foreign precedent in the first place.

Surely you can see how I'd have a problem with this.

 

[Brother None]

Well, I am a bit of a Machiavelle.

Loser

Judges don't usually consider international opinion when making a ruling. They're not supposed to. (at least ours aren't)

No, no they're not.

Let's not confuse things, here. The American legal system has made many unpopular rulings over the course of the country's history. They were, however, in America's best interest, because those decisions were made with American law in mind. Women Suffrage, for instance, faced strong opposition from other women. Yet it was still made into a Constitutional Ammendment, because they made the better case.

American Law, American perspective. Because that is what we're talking about, here, Law, not politics. In fact, my whole point has been that the Supreme Court has failed to keep politics independant of law.

Well, no. For one thing America was never really under pressure to strike the death sentence for children, since no country really has the power to put pressure on the US. It was a judicial rule based on *judicial* international counts, not political international counts. Just because it crosses the border doesn't mean it is political.

Besides which, not all American amendments and rulings were for the good of the people. Don't be a schwipe.

No, its precisely the point. Because you think it should doesn't necessarily mean that it will, nor that it should to Americans.

Not if it's unconstitutional, no.

Because there should be no pandering to foreign bodies from the Supreme Fucking Court. By saying that our laws are susceptible to foreign pressure, we've essentially given the hint that foreigners can dictate our law with diplomatic pressure.

Its not like they based their decision entirely on foreign precedent, but they shouldn't have to consider foreign precedent in the first place.

Surely you can see how I'd have a problem with this.

Wrong. I am not saying your laws are susceptible to foreign pressure. This is not about foreign dictatorship. I said it before and I'll say it again, this is lead-by-example, not lead-by-pressure, it is very typical of an American to be incapable of understanding that, since the country has never been to good at leading without heavy political pressure.

Look at it this way; all countries but 7 have not executed children in the past 10 years. This gives the Supreme Court a moment to hesitate and think "but wait, if all civilized countries do it that way, isn't it about time we take a look at our own constitution and see if we're doing things the right way?" It is not about adapting the constitution to foreign rule, it's about taking foreign example to check for flaws in the constitution.

Every constitution in the world is rife with contradiction, promising freedom of speech etc. and taking it away a few paragraphs down. The Supreme Court's job is to consider, which is more important over time. Yes, I do agree, they shouldn't decide what is more important based on foreign precedent, this does not mean that when the US is doing something wrong and everyone else is doing it right, like in this case, the US shouldn't be allowed to follow international example and adapt just because you fear the commies, boy-o.

 

[Bradylama]

It was a judicial rule based on *judicial* international counts, not political international counts. Just because it crosses the border doesn't mean it is political.

Incorrect. The case brought before the Supreme Court didn't get there simply because of foreign precedent. It had to climb its way up through the lower courts by way of appeal. For the Supreme Court to even consider hearing the case, it'd have to have an increadibly strong Constitutional argument.

This did not come about because of foreign precedence, it reached the supreme court because it was able to work its way through the American court system. That is why it was unnecessary to reference foreign courts, and that's why its even further unnecessary (and foolish) for Kennedy to say that they had to consider the weight of international opinion. They didn't.

The Supreme Court doesn't make legislation. They can't look at foreign law and say "oh hay maybe we need to fix this thing, guy," it comes up in the course of proceedings.

The case had a strong constitutional argument. Period. Nothing else should have influence the Supreme Court Justices' decisions. Because that's their job, to make rulings based on the Constitution.

Not if it's unconstitutional, no.

But you still don't get it. Foreign concepts of justice and law are still very different from American ones. In fact, we're still unsure of our own concepts of justice. So why, then, should we base our own ideals on foreign rulings made in alien situations?

I am not saying your laws are susceptible to foreign pressure.

No, you're not, but Kennedy did. That's what I've been saying this whole time, that the Supreme Court Justices have compromised the impartiality of the courts by bending to foreign pressure. If this was honestly based on foreign precedent, he would have said so. But he said the word opinion. Very different. It is not a legal statement, but a political one, and you'd have to be blind not to notice it.

Look at it this way; all countries but 7 have not executed children in the past 10 years. This gives the Supreme Court a moment to hesitate and think "but wait, if all civilized countries do it that way, isn't it about time we take a look at our own constitution and see if we're doing things the right way?" It is not about adapting the constitution to foreign rule, it's about taking foreign example to check for flaws in the constitution.

And this may or may not come about in the events of court proceedings. However, we should not be giving credit to foreign bodies, because it is saying that our laws are susceptible to foreign opinions.

Its fine to be inspired, but its not fine to make foreign rulings a part of our domestic process, which Kennedy and the other Justices have essentially done.

And who says that "Civilised" nations are correct anyways? The concept of civilised and uncivilised nations ended up coming back to bite you in the ass, didn't it?

 

[frissy]

You kill, you die (unless it's for king and country). Simple.

Eye for an eye.
________
Angelina Jolie Nude