Aug. 13, 2003
We live in a global economy, right? But the elites mouthing this
mantra haven't shared with the American people the news that globalism
not only means open borders for the movement of goods and the migration
of peoples, plus textbooks teaching children to be citizens of the
world instead of patriots.
Globalism also means bending the United States Constitution into
conformity with opinions of foreigners who pompously enunciate new laws
and new human rights. The utterings of these self-important
bureaucrats in the United Nations and some European countries could be
merely matters for TV humor if it were not that Supreme Court Justices
Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Stevens take them seriously.
Justice Breyer gleefully told George Stepanopoulos on ABC News how
the United States is changing "through commerce and through
globalization ... [and] through immigration," and that this change is
having an impact on the courts. He speculated on "the challenge" of
whether our U.S. Constitution "fits into the governing documents of
Where did he get the idea that the U.S. Constitution should "fit"
into the laws of other nations? If a country can't make its own laws,
how can it be a sovereign nation?
In a dissent in Knight v. Florida, Breyer said it was "useful" to
consider court decisions on allowable delays of execution in India,
Jamaica and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe, indeed, has had a lot of experience
with executions, but it's hardly a country from which we should get
guidance about due process.
Justice Kennedy couldn't find any language in the U.S.
Constitution to justify overturning the Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v.
Texas, so he invoked "other authorities" in "Western civilization,"
namely, the European Court of Human Rights, which invalidated EU
countries' domestic laws proscribing homosexual conduct. Kennedy cited
an amicus brief filed by Mary Robinson, former United Nations high
commissioner for human rights.
Kennedy wrote, "The right the petitioners seek [to engage in
sodomy] has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many
other countries," and he emphasized the "values we share with a wider
civilization." In fact, most other countries do not share American
values, and we don't want to share theirs.
Reading foreign court decisions no doubt contributed to Kennedy's
reliance on "emerging awareness ... in matters pertaining to sex"
instead of on the U.S. Constitution. Four justices joined in Kennedy's
majority decision without distancing themselves from his globalist
reasoning or his false recitation of U.S. history of sodomy laws.
Justice Scalia eloquently dissented: "Constitutional entitlements
do not spring into existence ... because foreign nations decriminalize
conduct." He called Kennedy's words "dangerous dicta," adding that the
Supreme Court "should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on
Of course, the Supreme Court should not; but it did. Is the Court
now going to use Canada's fad about same-sex marriages to overturn the
laws of our 50 states?
Instead of condemning Kennedy's use of foreign courts to change
U.S. laws, the American Bar Association president opined that "the
concept of fundamental law knows no national boundaries." Sounding off
from left field, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe chimed in to
"applaud" the "important insights" of the "global legal community."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, concurring in
Grutter v. Bollinger, cited a treaty to justify the University of
Michigan Law School's affirmative action. They wrote: "The
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, ratified by the United States in 1994 ... endorses
special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and
protection of certain racial groups ... for the purpose of guaranteeing
them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
When the Senate ratified that treaty under pressure from the
Clinton Administration (30 years after Lyndon Johnson signed it), I
wonder if anyone predicted that it would require U.S. schools to impose
reverse discrimination based on race.
In Atkins v. Virginia, Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion
cited an amicus brief from the European Union. The EU warned us,
Stevens wrote, that "within the world community, the imposition of the
death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is
Scalia retorted, "The views of other nations cannot be imposed
upon Americans." But five justices did impose foreign views on us.
It's obvious why the Democrats filibuster any judicial nominee
they suspect of being a strict constructionist. The Democrats love an
activist judiciary because court decisions can make fundamental changes
that the American people and our elected representatives don't want.
It's also obvious why the Democrats like United Nations treaties.
Activist judges can use them to circumvent our Constitution and laws --
and diminish American sovereignty.