Justices Scalia and Bryer debated the role of foreign legal opinions in Supreme Court decisions. I say Scalia made the better case.
“We don’t have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world and never have,” he said yesterday, adding that the framers of the U.S. Constitution “would be appalled” to see the document they wrote interpreted in light of the views of European courts.
“What does the opinion of a wise Zimbabwean judge . . . have to do with what Americans believe,” Scalia asked Breyer, “unless you think it has been given to the courts” to make moral judgments that properly should be left to elected representatives. “Well, it’s relevant in this way,” Breyer replied. “They are human beings there, just as they are here. You’re trying to get a picture of how other people have dealt with it.”
“Indulge your curiosity,” Scalia joked, “just don’t put it in your opinions.”
Relying on “They are human beings there” is like saying you did something “for the children.” Both are scams to take away your rights.