|
"Nothing
in the Constitution has given them (the federal judges) a right
to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide
for them…The opinion which gives to the judges the right
to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only
for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature
and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary
a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Abigail Adams, September 11,
1804)
Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan must be tossing
and turning a bit.
Jefferson, anticipating, with trepidation, activism in the judicial
branch, eloquently expressed his apprehension regarding such
behavior.
Reagan’s heralded selection to the U.S. Supreme Court,
Sandra Day O’Connor, has, in recent years, become an aficionada
of international law. With the cheerful assist of her colleague,
Anthony Kennedy, another Reagan appointee, the court recently
found against imposition of the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-old
murderers. Roper v. Simmons is notable not only for
the depravity of the murderous act, but also the fact that 17-year-old,
cold-blooded killer Christopher Simmons bragged to his friends
that they could “get away with” their hideous crime
due to their tender years. Young Simmons proposed to his chums
that they break into the victim’s home, bind her with
duct tape and electrical wire, tape her face, cloak her head
in towels, and fling her off a railroad trestle to her death
in the icy river below. A few hours later, the vicious act was
underway.
Just
an extra-curricular activity for rambunctious boys with a bit
of time on their hands. Must we take their mischief so seriously?
In their opinion, the justices spoke of the “evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
Make no mistake, however. These “standards” apply
neither to the victims nor to the nature of the crimes. The
nouveau standards apply to the perpetrators. As to the “maturing
society,” even at the inception of our nation, the maturity
of the founders put these out-of-touch justices to shame. Laws
based upon our Constitution appear quaint vestiges of another
time to these enlightened internationalists, who prefer to reference
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child rather than the
U.S. Constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer has invoked the rulings
of the Supreme Courts of Zimbabwe, India and the Privy Council
of Jamaica to support his rulings.
Columnist
Jonah Goldberg recently quoted Breyer as having said, "These
are human beings called judges who have problems that are similar
to our own. Why don't I read what he says if it is similar enough?"
In Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision legalizing
sodomy, the Supreme Court audaciously acknowledged taking the
laws of other nations into consideration. Justice Kennedy, writing
for the majority, referenced both the laws of Northern Ireland
and the European Court of Human Rights: "Other nations
have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected
right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual
conduct."
Justice Kennedy veered not a millimeter from his globalistic
stance while writing for the majority of the court in overturning
statutes that apply capital punishment for murderers under age
18. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming
weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty.
The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our
outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation
for our own conclusions."
Justice O’Connor concurs, envisioning we "will find
ourselves looking more frequently to the decisions of other
constitutional courts." Globalization is creating "one
world," she reasons, and the future challenge for the court
will be to determine how "our Constitution fits into the
governing documents of other nations. Conclusions reached by
other countries and by the international community,” she
maintains, “should at times constitute persuasive authority
in American courts."
The evidence that prior to the commission of his crime, Christopher
Simmons stated his desire to murder someone, merits little concern.
Neither does the fact that 19 states have chosen to enforce
the ultimate penalty for such wickedness. Currently there are
close to 70 underage murderers on death rows throughout the
country. This opinion of a few negates the considered opinions
of nearly a thousand jurors deciding the cases of these depraved
teen killers.
Yet in a trend that should alarm all Americans, our esteemed
jurists have once again concluded that the laws of other countries
now supersede the U.S. Constitution. No longer bound by our
venerated documents, the court is unconstrained in reaching
whatever ruling suits their whims. In fact, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, addressing the American Constitutional Society in
2003, voiced her hope that America would reject its insulated
attitude when interpreting our own Constitution, stating, “Our
‘island’ or ‘lone ranger’ mentality
is beginning to change. Our Justices . . . are becoming more
open to comparative and international law perspectives.”
This is the same court which mysteriously found the right to
kill the unborn tucked away in the previously undetected constitutional
right to personal privacy, as well as the right to “personal
liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment” when deciding Roe v. Wade.
Imagine Walt Disney’s surprise had he realized he provided
a theme song for the globally sensitive U.S. Supreme Court Justices
when the naive and repetitive lyrics to "It’s a Small
World," were penned.
Carol
Turoff is a lifelong Arizonan and active Republican. Her credentials
include serving as a precinct committeeman, precinct captain
and elected member of the Republican state committee, as well
as involvement in numerous political campaigns. She worked for
the offices of the Maricopa County Attorney and Sheriff, as
legislative liaison and public information officer. Additionally,
she fulfilled those roles for the Department of Administration
for the State of Arizona. Ms. Turoff recently concluded service
as two-term member of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments,
during which time she participated in the selection of all five
of the current Arizona Supreme Court Justices as well as 17
judges on both Div. I and II of the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Read a recent letter to the editor on judicial selection Carol
wrote here.
Email
Carol Turoff
Send
this Article to a Friend
|
