When Sandra D. started going around the country talking about using foreign law to reconcile American controversies, I complained to my closest crony that I didn't understand why the things she was saying weren't an impeachable offense. Then Stephen Breyer started doing it. Now here's Justice Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg fresh from her nap and wishing the American Constitution were more like that of South Africa. She makes it sound so reasonable, as if we're all in one big happy conversation about fairness.
If U.S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others including Canada, South Africa, and most recently the U. K. - now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.
Well, let's say I concede her point. But then it's the role of legislators to learn from what others are doing. Her role --to which she is bound by an oath-- is to apply the actual Constitution of the United States, not to apply whatever law happens to seem good to her that morning (I'm going with a rich, mountain-grown Colombian blend for today's ruling. Tomorrow: maybe Sumatran, maybe Kenyan, who knows?). Anything short of that means we're not self-governed, but truly under the rule of The Nine. And nine usurpers at that.
Curtsy to Powerline guys, esp. for agreeing with me (against my crony) that this stuff is impeachable (not that it will happen, but it should).
