.

[obamacon]

.

[shaz]

the choice of the word "finally" tells me all i need to know about this individual. 

[umd blue devil]

the "finally get his way" was written by Adam Cohen and is not a quote by Kennedy. i have reservations about kennedy, even though i consider myself a judical consertative. kenndy has done some things before like use foreign court decisions to influence his own, as they have been cited in his decisions. i think kenndy has slowly become more liberal and voted with the consertatives mainly when his vote did not matter. now that he might be the deciding factor, im not sure he'll stay on the right side. hopefully he will and AA will end. it would be nice to know the people who got accepted to a law school i got rejected from happened because they were most likely better applicants, and not due to the color of their skin.

[umd blue devil]

true

[philibusters]

the "finally get his way" was written by Adam Cohen and is not a quote by Kennedy. i have reservations about kennedy, even though i consider myself a judical consertative. kenndy has done some things before like use foreign court decisions to influence his own, as they have been cited in his decisions. i think kenndy has slowly become more liberal and voted with the consertatives mainly when his vote did not matter. now that he might be the deciding factor, im not sure he'll stay on the right side. hopefully he will and AA will end. it would be nice to know the people who got accepted to a law school i got rejected from happened because they were most likely better applicants, and not due to the color of their skin.

I hear so many pre-laws b*tch about so and so justice using norms of other countries in their opinions.  Lots of times they are referring to Lawrence v. Texas.  Thats an accepted practice when making a history and tradition argument, in no way should that be the thrust of your history and tradition argument, but its an accepted practice to mention it to bolster your argument, both sides do it.  Everybody criticizes the liberal justices for doing it in Lawrence, yet the Bowers decisions whcih Lawrence overturned, did the exact same thing the other way, referencing how even in ancient times, Rome had bans on same sex sodomy.

[J D]

the "finally get his way" was written by Adam Cohen and is not a quote by Kennedy. i have reservations about kennedy, even though i consider myself a judical consertative. kenndy has done some things before like use foreign court decisions to influence his own, as they have been cited in his decisions. i think kenndy has slowly become more liberal and voted with the consertatives mainly when his vote did not matter. now that he might be the deciding factor, im not sure he'll stay on the right side. hopefully he will and AA will end. it would be nice to know the people who got accepted to a law school i got rejected from happened because they were most likely better applicants, and not due to the color of their skin.

I hear so many pre-laws b*tch about so and so justice using norms of other countries in their opinions.  Lots of times they are referring to Lawrence v. Texas.  Thats an accepted practice when making a history and tradition argument, in no way should that be the thrust of your history and tradition argument, but its an accepted practice to mention it to bolster your argument, both sides do it.  Everybody criticizes the liberal justices for doing it in Lawrence, yet the Bowers decisions whcih Lawrence overturned, did the exact same thing the other way, referencing how even in ancient times, Rome had bans on same sex sodomy.

I would also point out the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion in WA v. Glucksberg.  I don't remember folks on the right grousing about his references to the laws and decisions by the courts of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in choosing not to allow physician assisted suicide...

[umd blue devil]

in that case they ruled the consitution does not protect one when helping in a suicide. austriala legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995 and Canada decleared the right to suicide as fundamental. it looks like rehnquist did not use forgien courts decision to support or justify his opinoin, if he did, that would be wrong. if i am wrong correct me, i just looked over the case briefly.


btw any chance the supreme court takes up an AA case within the next year? hehe a couple extra slots wouldnt hurt for my chances

[philibusters]

in that case they ruled the consitution does not protect one when helping in a suicide. austriala legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995 and Canada decleared the right to suicide as fundamental. it looks like rehnquist did not use forgien courts decision to support or justify his opinoin, if he did, that would be wrong. if i am wrong correct me, i just looked over the case briefly.


btw any chance the supreme court takes up an AA case within the next year? hehe a couple extra slots wouldnt hurt for my chances

Theres nothing inherently wrong with citing what foreign courts do or foreign legislatures enact in a judicial decision.  I don't understand why you think its so wrong.  When a judge is interpreting history and traditon or what is included in a concept of ordered liberty why shouldn't they look outside the country.  Maybe they are pointing out how a trend in the U.S. is part of broader worldwide trend (like Kennedy did in Lawrence). 

As for Glucksberg, Rehnquist talked about the other countries in a footnote... "Other countries are embroiled in similar debates: The Supreme Court of Canada recently rejected a claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes a fundamental right to assisted suicide, Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 107 D. L. R. (4th) 342 (1993); the British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics refused to recommend any change in Great Britain's assisted-suicide prohibition, House of Lords, Session 1993-94 Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, 12 Issues in Law & Med. 193, 202 (1996) ("We identify no circumstances in which assisted suicide should be permitted"); New Zealand's Parliament rejected a proposed "Death With Dignity Bill" that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide in August 1995, Graeme, MPs Throw out Euthanasia Bill, The Dominion (Wellington), Aug. 17, 1995, p. 1; and the Northern Territory of Australia legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995. See Shenon, Australian Doctors Get Right to Assist Suicide, N.Y. Times, July 28, 1995, p. A8. As of February 1997, three persons had ended their lives with physician assistance in the Northern Territory. Mydans, Assisted Suicide: Australia Faces a Grim Reality, N. Y. Times, Febr. 2, 1997, p. A3. On March 24, 1997, however, the Australian Senate voted to overturn the Northern Territory's law. Thornhill, Australia Repeals Euthanasia Law, Washington Post, March 25, 1997, p. A14; see Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, No. 17, 1997 (Austl.). On the other hand, on May 20, 1997, Colombia's Constitutional Court legalized voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill people. Sentencia No. C-239/97 (Corte Constitucional, Mayo 20, 1997); see Colombia's Top Court Legalizes Euthanasia, Orlando Sentinel, May 22, 1997, p. A18."

[J D]

in that case they ruled the consitution does not protect one when helping in a suicide. austriala legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995 and Canada decleared the right to suicide as fundamental. it looks like rehnquist did not use forgien courts decision to support or justify his opinoin, if he did, that would be wrong. if i am wrong correct me, i just looked over the case briefly.


btw any chance the supreme court takes up an AA case within the next year? hehe a couple extra slots wouldnt hurt for my chances

Remember that Glucksberg came out in 1997, likely before Canada declared suicide a fundamental right.  The following comes from the opinion, 521 U.S. 702, at 718 n. 16 (also, pay particular attention to the bolded portions):

"Other countries are embroiled in similar debates: The Supreme Court of Canada recently rejected a claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes a fundamental right to assisted suicide, Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 107 D. L. R. (4th) 342 (1993); the British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics refused to recommend any change in Great Britain's assisted-suicide prohibition, House of Lords, Session 1993-94 Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, 12 Issues in Law & Med. 193, 202 (1996) ("We identify no circumstances in which assisted suicide should be permitted"); New Zealand's Parliament rejected a proposed "Death With Dignity Bill" that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide in August 1995, Graeme, MPs Throw out Euthanasia Bill, The Dominion (Wellington), Aug. 17, 1995, p. 1; and the Northern Territory of Australia legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995. See Shenon, Australian Doctors Get Right to Assist Suicide, N.Y. Times, July 28, 1995, p. A8. As of February 1997, three persons had ended their lives with physician assistance in the Northern Territory. Mydans, Assisted Suicide: Australia Faces a Grim Reality, N. Y. Times, Febr. 2, 1997, p. A3. On March 24, 1997, however, the Australian Senate voted to overturn the Northern Territory's law. Thornhill, Australia Repeals Euthanasia Law, Washington Post, March 25, 1997, p. A14; see Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, No. 17, 1997 (Austl.). On the other hand, on May 20, 1997, Colombia's Constitutional Court legalized voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill people. Sentencia No. C-239/97 (Corte Constitucional, Mayo 20, 1997); see Colombia's Top Court Legalizes Euthanasia, Orlando Sentinel, May 22, 1997, p. A18."

Again, I repeat, I don't remember anyone up in arms over this particular citation of foreign authority.  Apparently, it's only objectionable when used to strike down legislation here (or come to a conclusion the particular pundit otherwise doesn't like), although, if one takes Scalia's arguments against the citation of foreign law to their logical conclusion, it should be equally irrelevant and objectionable in either situation (since in any event, it has no bearing on whether a right is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions).  Condemnation, however, appears to be selective, from all I can tell.

[J D]

in that case they ruled the consitution does not protect one when helping in a suicide. austriala legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995 and Canada decleared the right to suicide as fundamental. it looks like rehnquist did not use forgien courts decision to support or justify his opinoin, if he did, that would be wrong. if i am wrong correct me, i just looked over the case briefly.


btw any chance the supreme court takes up an AA case within the next year? hehe a couple extra slots wouldnt hurt for my chances

Theres nothing inherently wrong with citing what foreign courts do or foreign legislatures enact in a judicial decision.  I don't understand why you think its so wrong.  When a judge is interpreting history and traditon or what is included in a concept of ordered liberty why shouldn't they look outside the country.  Maybe they are pointing out how a trend in the U.S. is part of broader worldwide trend (like Kennedy did in Lawrence). 

As for Glucksberg, Rehnquist talked about the other countries in a footnote... "Other countries are embroiled in similar debates: The Supreme Court of Canada recently rejected a claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes a fundamental right to assisted suicide, Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 107 D. L. R. (4th) 342 (1993); the British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics refused to recommend any change in Great Britain's assisted-suicide prohibition, House of Lords, Session 1993-94 Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, 12 Issues in Law & Med. 193, 202 (1996) ("We identify no circumstances in which assisted suicide should be permitted"); New Zealand's Parliament rejected a proposed "Death With Dignity Bill" that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide in August 1995, Graeme, MPs Throw out Euthanasia Bill, The Dominion (Wellington), Aug. 17, 1995, p. 1; and the Northern Territory of Australia legalized assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in 1995. See Shenon, Australian Doctors Get Right to Assist Suicide, N.Y. Times, July 28, 1995, p. A8. As of February 1997, three persons had ended their lives with physician assistance in the Northern Territory. Mydans, Assisted Suicide: Australia Faces a Grim Reality, N. Y. Times, Febr. 2, 1997, p. A3. On March 24, 1997, however, the Australian Senate voted to overturn the Northern Territory's law. Thornhill, Australia Repeals Euthanasia Law, Washington Post, March 25, 1997, p. A14; see Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, No. 17, 1997 (Austl.). On the other hand, on May 20, 1997, Colombia's Constitutional Court legalized voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill people. Sentencia No. C-239/97 (Corte Constitucional, Mayo 20, 1997); see Colombia's Top Court Legalizes Euthanasia, Orlando Sentinel, May 22, 1997, p. A18."

Dang, phil, you beat me to the punch!  And for the record, I don't see the citation of foreign authority as intrinsically wrong, either, depending on the circumstances.  Certainly, if a previous case, like Bowers or Glucksberg, makes the extent to which we share a tradition with a broad Western civilization a basis for its decision, then that automatically opens the door to citation of foreign legal authority and makes it relevant.  Also, I generally don't mind foreign law being used as persuasive authority (as it always is and has been, ever since the founding, when most state courts were citing Mansfield and Coke in making that state's law of contracts or property or the criminal law); this is especially true when dealing with issues of first impression, problems that haven't been in our courts before, but have been in the courts of other (usually common-law) countries.  It's not like the citation of UK v. Dudgeon in Lawrence was binding.  It was merely persuasive, the same way the Supreme Court of OK might look to the Court of Appeals of NY and adopt the same reasoning they have come up with on a particular issue, because it seems to make sense to them.

I was just pointing out that, for those, like Scalia and Thomas, who think the citation of foreign law (with the exception of citing old English cases to illustrate the background principles of traditional common-law subjects, like due process or the writ of habeas corpus) is per se objectionable, since it is irrelevant to whether a right is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions, citations like that in Glucksberg should be just as criticized as citations like that in Lawrence.