It’s scary enough that “Justice [Darth Vader] Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions on Friday, rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.”
A lot of people are jumping on that, and rightfully so.
But the most disturbing statement she made seems to have been overshadowed in all the “international law” hoopla”: "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."
In other words, she is of the mind that we have a “living Constitution,” with all that that implies.
As Walter Williams instructs us, “Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be ‘living’? Depending on ‘evolving standards,’ maybe my two pair could beat your flush.”
Another disturbing factoid: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ...described Justice Ginsberg as 'a great and good friend.'"
Exactly. As product of a modern American law school, I can tell you that conlaw professors spend a lot of time teaching judicially-created standards and tests, and very little, if any time teaching the text and original meaning of the Constitution. In fact, my conlaw professor never eve assigned the Constitution. But, we did read 15,000 pages of judicial opinions creating such and we did learn a lot about "substantive due process."
ReplyDelete