Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

She is by no means alone on the Supreme Court. Six of that Court’s nine members have either written or joined in opinions citing foreign authorities. The most astonishing, or risible, so far was Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion arguing that he found “useful” in interpreting our Constitution decisions by the Privy Council of Jamaica, and the Supreme Courts of India and Zimbabwe. Jamaica and India are far-fetched enough. But Zimbabwe–the country devastated by the blood-stained dictator Robert Mugabe! We might as well learn our constitutional law from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Fidel Castro’s Cuba.

The authors of the Eighth Amendment drafted a categorical prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments, but they made no attempt to define the contours of that category. They delegated that task to future generations of judges who have been guided by the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion) (Warren, C. J.). 4 In performing that task the [487 U.S. 815, 822]  Court has reviewed the work product of state legislatures and sentencing juries, 5 and has carefully considered the reasons why a civilized society may accept or reject the death penalty in certain types of cases. Thus, in confronting the question whether the youth of the defendant - more specifically, the fact that he was less than 16 years old at the time of his offense - is a sufficient reason for denying the State the power to sentence him to death, we first review relevant legislative enactments, 6 then refer to jury determinations, 7 and [487 U.S. 815, 823]  finally explain why these indicators of contemporary standards of decency confirm our judgment that such a young person is not capable of acting with the degree of culpability that can justify the ultimate penalty. 8 

What these courts are doing closely resembles Belgium’s concept of “universal jurisdiction,” under which its courts were asserting the authority to try criminally people involved in actions that have no connection to Belgium. A Belgian court tried and convicted Rwandan nuns for their actions during a massacre in Rwanda. The Belgian Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon may be tried after he leaves office for alleged war crimes in Lebanon 20 years earlier when he was head of Israel’s army. Since massacres by Arabs are not prosecuted, it is difficult to disagree with Israelis who see anti-Semitism as an explanation for the difference. That is to be expected.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a recent speech said that decisions of other countries’ courts could be persuasive authority in American courts. At a time when 30 percent of the U.S. gross national product is internationally derived, she said, “no institution of government can afford to ignore the rest of the world.”

She is by no means alone on the Supreme Court. Six of that Court’s nine members have either written or joined in opinions citing foreign authorities. The most astonishing, or risible, so far was Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion arguing that he found “useful” in interpreting our Constitution decisions by the Privy Council of Jamaica, and the Supreme Courts of India and Zimbabwe.

- After World War II, the U.S. used its triumph to help create the United Nations, push for the adoption of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and ratify the Geneva Conventions for humanitarian treatment in war.
- Not only did the U.S. play a crucial role in writing the new rules for that community, but it almost immediately began breaking them.

while casting outrageous aspersions.

Americans votes for everything, since firemen to police sergeants.

Wow, and you don't even see the irony...

you[r] legal thing is a terrible joke […]

hardly surprising courts lack dignity and quality