Pages: 1

 

2009-06-23 22:09:01
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7010
"He believes that the United States needs international permission in order to defend itself, even from imminent threats."
   http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/23/al … omination/


"The will of the American people will no longer matter if it is contrary to that of the "world community.""
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … 96507.html



http://preservesovereignty.wordpress.co … arold-koh/

"Koh’s record deserves more scrutiny because he is not just an attorney who knows the law — he is an activist lawyer who knows what he wants the law to be. From all he has said and written, it is apparent that Koh wants U.S. jurisprudence to be shaped by international law, European courts, foreign governments and international organizations like the United Nations. Koh puts himself in the “transnationalist” camp of legal practitioners, which he describes as those who “believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law.” He has written that “transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system.”"

Where the fuck do they find all these American hating candidates for positions with Barack?


Hope that he can be stopped...?
http://preservesovereignty.wordpress.com/
Love is the answer
2009-06-24 14:58:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6699|North Carolina
Not this again.

Here's some material that debunks the bullshit being stirred up about Koh.

http://www.slate.com/id/2215142/
2009-06-24 18:29:06
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291
Did he or did he not explicitly support the use of foreign laws and court decisions in US courts as foundation for binding precedent?

The answer is yes, he did.

Harry, don't let the door smack your rear on your way out.


...because I don't want ass prints on my fucking door.
2009-06-24 18:38:22
san4
The Mas
+311|6982|NYC, a place to live

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Did he or did he not explicitly support the use of foreign laws and court decisions in US courts as foundation for binding precedent?

The answer is yes, he did.
Link please
2009-06-25 04:42:53
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291
Wikipedia.  Sourced and everything.
2009-06-25 04:53:38
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6959|NT, like Mick Dundee

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Where the fuck do they find all these American hating candidates for positions with Barack?
They take them from lists of people who served under Reagan m8.

@ Hollis: The wiki article also states from two other professors what Koh apparently really means by that statement. "Neither Koh nor any serious American lawyer disputes the Constitution's supremacy within the U.S. legal system. What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."


Besides, globalisation is here, you can either seize the initiative now and retain the USA's global dominance or lose out to India and China.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-06-25 16:48:08
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291

Flecco wrote:

@ Hollis: The wiki article also states from two other professors what Koh apparently really means by that statement. "Neither Koh nor any serious American lawyer disputes the Constitution's supremacy within the U.S. legal system. What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."
Proof Koh needs to GTFO.  How the hell can another country's experience have any bearing on the meaning of the Constitution?  "Oh, look at Germany -- they've banned Holocaust denial and don't have many problems with it, so the First Amendment might not really protect it!"

Anyone who would give that line of thought a shred of a shred of credibility is straight up retarded.

Re.

Tard.

Ed.

Besides, globalisation is here, you can either seize the initiative now and retain the USA's global dominance or lose out to India and China.
Whether we do or do not "seize the initiative" is up to THE PEOPLE, not the judiciary.

The Article V amendment process: get to know it!
2009-06-25 16:50:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6699|North Carolina
Well... that was a reasoned response.... 

/sarcasm
2009-06-25 16:59:24
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291

Turquoise wrote:

Well... that was a reasoned response.... 

/sarcasm
When did the idea that the people of a sovereign nation get to govern themselves become unreasonable?
2009-06-25 17:57:18
san4
The Mas
+311|6982|NYC, a place to live

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Flecco wrote:

@ Hollis: The wiki article also states from two other professors what Koh apparently really means by that statement. "Neither Koh nor any serious American lawyer disputes the Constitution's supremacy within the U.S. legal system. What Koh has advocated - along with many others - is the educational value of other countries' experiences in interpreting our Constitution and statutes."
Proof Koh needs to GTFO.  How the hell can another country's experience have any bearing on the meaning of the Constitution?  "Oh, look at Germany -- they've banned Holocaust denial and don't have many problems with it, so the First Amendment might not really protect it!"

Anyone who would give that line of thought a shred of a shred of credibility is straight up retarded.
In other words, Koh doesn't support using foreign law as binding precedent. So are you abandoning your initial assertion to the contrary?
2009-06-25 18:21:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6699|North Carolina

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well... that was a reasoned response.... 

/sarcasm
When did the idea that the people of a sovereign nation get to govern themselves become unreasonable?
When did the idea of consulting other nations for their experiences become unreasonable?
2009-06-25 18:24:26
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291

san4 wrote:

In other words, Koh doesn't support using foreign law as binding precedent.
When such references make their way into court opinions, what the hell do you think they become?

I'll give you a hint: it ain't green beans.
2009-06-25 18:24:27
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5879

Turquoise wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well... that was a reasoned response.... 

/sarcasm
When did the idea that the people of a sovereign nation get to govern themselves become unreasonable?
When did the idea of consulting other nations for their experiences become unreasonable?
The same time when consulting history did.
Seriously though there is nothing wrong with at least looking at how others did it.

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-06-25 18:25:13)

2009-06-25 18:29:55
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291

Turquoise wrote:

When did the idea of consulting other nations for their experiences become unreasonable?
In the context of court opinions interpreting the Constitution, your premise is flawed because in order for something to "become unreasonable" it must first have been "reasonable."

The meaning of the Constitution changes with the expressed will of the people, not with the whims of robed demigods.

If you disagree with my premise that the use of other nations' judicial opinions is offensive to the Constitution, please answer the question I first posed using Holocaust denial and the first amendment as an example.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2009-06-25 18:30:37)

2009-06-25 19:15:58
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6699|North Carolina

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

When did the idea of consulting other nations for their experiences become unreasonable?
In the context of court opinions interpreting the Constitution, your premise is flawed because in order for something to "become unreasonable" it must first have been "reasonable."

The meaning of the Constitution changes with the expressed will of the people, not with the whims of robed demigods.

If you disagree with my premise that the use of other nations' judicial opinions is offensive to the Constitution, please answer the question I first posed using Holocaust denial and the first amendment as an example.
Because it's pretty obvious that most of the public would never stand for Holocaust denial.  If a ruling is controversial enough, there are actions that can be taken (and will be taken) to remove Justices.  The same goes for any other post in the government.

Still, I can sympathize with your fears.  Personally, I don't think the flaw is in consulting other nations -- the flaw is life appointment.

Justices should have terms just like everyone else.  No one in a "free" system should be appointed for life.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-06-25 19:17:11)

2009-06-25 20:12:55
san4
The Mas
+311|6982|NYC, a place to live

HollisHurlbut wrote:

san4 wrote:

In other words, Koh doesn't support using foreign law as binding precedent.
When such references make their way into court opinions, what the hell do you think they become?

I'll give you a hint: it ain't green beans.
They become dicta.
2009-06-25 21:19:57
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291

Turquoise wrote:

Because it's pretty obvious that most of the public would never stand for Holocaust denial.
You miss the idea.  Yes, the public likely has a low tolerance for Holocaust denial.  Which is why passing a law banning it would probably be fairly easy.  A challenge to the law would certainly be filed and it's very possibe that, given the fact that other nations have tried it with few real problems to show for it, a justification for its affirmation could be made based on that fact.  Holocaust denial would be exempt from first amendment protection, simply because other nations find it appealing.

Regardless, you've still not answered the question: how can the court opinions of another nation have any bearing on what the Constitution means?
2009-06-25 21:21:19
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6291

san4 wrote:

They become dicta.
So there's an entire section (six paragraphs) consisting of nothing but pure dicta in Roper v. Simmons?

Color me skeptical.
2009-06-26 19:29:48
san4
The Mas
+311|6982|NYC, a place to live

HollisHurlbut wrote:

san4 wrote:

They become dicta.
So there's an entire section (six paragraphs) consisting of nothing but pure dicta in Roper v. Simmons?

Color me skeptical.

Roper v. Simmons wrote:

Our determination that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. This reality does not become controlling, for the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains our responsibility.
It's explicitly dicta.

I wouldn't defend that ridiculous opinion, but it didn't make foreign law binding in any way.
2009-06-26 20:45:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6699|North Carolina

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Because it's pretty obvious that most of the public would never stand for Holocaust denial.
You miss the idea.  Yes, the public likely has a low tolerance for Holocaust denial.  Which is why passing a law banning it would probably be fairly easy.
Maybe, and while Jewish lobbies have a lot of power, I really don't think that's going to happen.  Still, I would agree that it's a possibility.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

A challenge to the law would certainly be filed and it's very possibe that, given the fact that other nations have tried it with few real problems to show for it, a justification for its affirmation could be made based on that fact.  Holocaust denial would be exempt from first amendment protection, simply because other nations find it appealing.
That's possible, but if it happened....  you can be sure that the backlash would be tremendous.  As I said, even Justices can be removed from office.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Regardless, you've still not answered the question: how can the court opinions of another nation have any bearing on what the Constitution means?
They don't have any bearing on what current interpretations involve, however, the Constitution is a living document.  It has been amended several times, and it will likely happen in the future as well.

The main relevance this discussion has in reference to the Constitution is that we should always look at the outside world for guidance on matters that may require more amendments.

As far as I can tell, that is the gist of Koh's viewpoint.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-06-27 10:25:53)

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard