Orin Kerr has a pithy comment about Tom DeLay and his silly comments about how "outrageous" it is for Justice Kennedy to use the internet for research:
What's next? I fully expect DeLay to introduce H.R. 8615, The Stop Anthony Kennedy From Using the Internet Act of 2005. Stay tuned.
Professor Kerr, it should probably be noted, had the unusual experience (at least I think this is unusual) of leaving his position as a law professor to clerk for Justice Kennedy during the 2003 term, then returned to his teaching position.
- Log in to post comments
Obviously Delay is throwing everything at the wall hoping that something sticks. What a joke that guy is.
what a joke that guy is,
Yes, but it's not just any joke. It's like a bad practical joke that goes horribly wrong and winds up burning down your house.
Carpundit,
I love the analogy about burning down the house. I will have to use that, giving you full credit, of course! (I always footnote!!)
And while we focus on the antics of DeLay, an energy bill has passed the senate to give DeLay's MTBE buddies our tax money for R & D, and grant them immunity from the numerous lawsuits against said buddies.
We are given a choice of clean water or clean air, but cannot have both, so the choice was made to give aid and comfort to MTBE manufacterers...
makes sense... i guess!
You have to admit, Delay's comments bring up a funny image of Justice Kennedy sitting at the computer on google typing: "european decision" and "10th amendment"
OK, I did a Google search on "european decision" and "10th amendment", and came across a House Judiciary Committe document that discusses Lawrence, as well as a few other recent court decisions:
Atkins v. Virginia, where the execution of retarded citizens was based on the consensus of european communities, not on the consensus of the states that executed retarded citizens.
Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the use of racial preferences for college admissions.
Knight v. Florida, which is concerned about delays of executions based on the laws of Jamaica, among others.
It's good reading, especially considering the topic of this thread:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju92673.000/hju92673_0.HTM
The honorable Congressman Ron Paul asks: "Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?"
So, apparently it is perfectly OK to cite foreign laws that favor one's agenda, but not if it favors the other guy's agenda...
International law, which is part of our law, and foreign laws, which are not, aren't the same thing. Unfortunately, Melody, you join Mr. DeLay in not understanding the distinction.
Ouch Tom!
So, for us ignorant types, is the distinction made due to our treaties with the UN and our part in creating international law, whereas foreign laws pertain to the laws unique to a given country?
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, however curtly put...
So, apparently it is perfectly OK to cite foreign laws that favor one's agenda, but not if it favors the other guy's agenda...
This is very true. Very, very true.
People who object to citing foreign legal practices (not just foreign laws) seem to want to believe that the American legal tradition sprang full blown in 1776. It didn't The American legal tradition was based on the British legal tradition, which, in turn, was based on the Roman legal tradition. And so the idea that American courts should not look to opinions of courts of other countries for guidance is shear idiocy.