Ruth Bader Ginsburg Defends Using Foreign Law to Interpret the Constitution
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview defended judges who use foreign law to interpret the United States constitution.
I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law
I just don’t even have the words to describe how asinine I find it that any justice on the Supreme Court could find any possible justification for looking at other countries to interpret OUR country’s constitution. I admit it, it is beyond my ability to grasp the idea that foreign law should have any part in interpreting our constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts said it best:
If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”
There is really nothing that I can add to what Chief Justice Roberts said, he hit the nail on the head. I just don’t understand how we have come to a point in this country when it is acceptable to look outside the constitution to interpret the constitution. And I certainly don’t understand how it has become acceptable to look to another country’s laws to interpret our country’s constitution.
America's Watchtower 
Even our founding fathers understood that a certain amount of foreign originating law and custom must be considered. When discussing our separation from England they cited, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” as a requirement.
Frankly, we’ve been referring to foreign laws and legal documents since the original Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the 1st Congressional Congress.
So…This is a strawman argument on both sides. It’s not whether or not America references foreign laws in the process of interpreting our Constitution; it’s how we do so and which laws we reference.
There’s a huge difference between the Magna Carta, which our Constitution is loosely based upon and Shari’a or Talmudic laws…
LikeLike
The only foreign laws that we should be using to refer to are the British laws and only those upon which our laws are based. I can see using logic in decisions made be foreign judges in cases where our laws are similar but that is not applying foreign law here. Our laws must still apply. If not, then that is should be ripe for being overturned.
LikeLike
But why only use Germany, Briton, and other European courts? Why not Saudi Arabia? We should execute anyone who does drugs. It’s not considered cruel or unusual there. Why not apply it here?
Or about about Iran where if you have an affair, you get your boys chopped off. Or China’s policy on political dissent! We should have more of that here.
The problem with referring to other countries for judicial prudence is that they have different laws for a reason. You can’t just pick and choose which country you’re going to follow because then it isn’t fair. It’s either all or none. I prefer none.
LikeLike