By Wesley J. Smith
This interview by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is frightening in its candor about how she apparently perceives her job as one of establishing "right" policy--which, in her case are of the Left Intellectual Elite--as opposed to interpreting and applying law as it was created by the political branches of government, that is to say, by the people. In an interview with the New York Times, she explains why she believes the rulings of foreign judges should be considered in interpreting US constitutional and statutory law: From her interview:
Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds. "Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.
She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court. The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is "probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court." There is one reason for that, she said: "You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others."
We are supposed to care whether Canadian rulings--which hew sharply to the left--are cited by foreign judges more than those of the US Supreme Court? We are supposed to care if another country's courts interprets its laws and constitution the way we do ours? Our judges are supposed to be diplomats to make other countries feel we respect their views?
Baloney. This is an excuse for a power grab. And in Ginsberg's attitudes, you see clearly why many judges "move," or "mature," or "grow"--pick the word--from "left" to "right:" Left is where the power is. Left allows judges to remake society according to their own personal views.
Let's not kid a kidder: The foreign cases that the former head of the ACLU Ginsberg cites will only be the ones with which she agrees--generally from Western Europe or Canada, that reflect her leftist views on social, economic, and environmental issues. And in crafting cases she hopes will be popular with our betters abroad, she will cater to these same leftist perspectives. You sure won't see her citing Islamic court rulings on the rights of women! So it isn't being foreign that is important, it is finding a hook upon which you can hang your legal hat to justify your ideological ruling.
And make no mistake: the judges who hold Ginsberg's views happily conflate their political desires with the mandates of the constitution, meaning that we are in witnessing a bloodless revolution led by judges that is intent on overthrowing the traditional standards of Judeo-Christian/humanistic moral philosophy of our (the US's) founding, which I believe remain the majority belief of the people. But "the judges" think that such views are for rubes. They are intent on refashioning society based on a utilitarian/hedonistic/radical environmentalist ideology to which they subscribe.
And that is why we see so many cases decided today that create constitutional rights that nobody ever knew existed--in order to force the country to adopt policies that the few think should apply to the many. And in that is a profound loss of freedom.