He did *what* on The Internet?

[giza]

According to http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/20/delay.judges.ap/index.html, Tom DeLay really said this:

"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

Let me see if I understand this. Mr. DeLay is upset because a judge actually... did some research before deciding on a case? Holy self-empowerment, Batman! Stop the presses! Using the Internet for a legitimate purpose, who'd have thought!

Tommy boy, do us a favor and quit while you're far behind, okay?

Comments

[kellic.livejournal.com]

To be fair there is a lot of shit out here. Just saying you did research on the net doesn’t mean much. I mean for all we know he did his research on theonion.com. (I doubt it though.)
Still Tommy boy is just being his typical asstastic self by trying to move the blame to someone else. Typical Republican (And to a certain extent Democrat.) behavior. I love that he is using the new Republican buzz phrase. Last fall it was flip-flop. This Spring its “judicial activists”. Which is political speak for doing things that embarrasses or opposes the Republican Regime’s agenda. Well what did everyone expect? The Republican’s own the Executive and Legislative branches. All that is left is the Judicial and there’s the ball game. *sighs* This is why I’ve avoided watching\reading the news as much as possible. Ulcers and me don’t get along very well.

(*Rocks back and forth*...only 3.75 more years....3.75)

[swift-fox.livejournal.com]

I think the point of Tom's rant was that Supreme Court and Federal Justices are only supposed to base their decisions in reference to what is stated in the United States Constitution.

The outrage is that Justice Kennedy based his decision on International Laws, ignoring and circumventing the US Constitution. That goes outside and against the precepts of the duties of the Supreme and/or Federal Court system.

That Justice Kennedy used the internet to research his decision is nothing compared to his blatantly, negligent execution of his duties.

Swift Fox

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

Why are we assuming "he based his decision on International Law!" is actually true again?

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

Thank you, that was a fascinating read. :)
Every time I read something like this or RBJ delves into the details of certain decisions I grow more impressed at the thoroughness employed. And am now bitterly amused that anyone could be intimately familiar with the issue and still overgeneralize the side issue of the validity of international opinion on the subject as either prevalent to the decision or unconstitutional.

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

I think the point of giza's post was concerning the quote about the Internet.

Responding to this diversion of topic, tho, I'm not sure I agree that his interpretational references to international law are such a gross violation.

The US Constitution was not meant to be interpreted with biblical literalism, nor was it meant to be infallible. If international laws seem to be doing a better job of maintaining balance, equality, and peace than strict interpretations of the US Constitution, I don't see why the rules can't be bent a little in favor of other countries' ideas.

The United States is not always right.

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

How is doing the best job of maintaining balance, equality, and peace not in our best interest?

I don't think blanket enforcement based on what-ifs and slippery slope scenarios are in our best interest. I'd like to see a demonstration of direct harm before decisions become invalidated.

If blanket inflexibility for the purpose of avoiding theoretical doomsday scenarios were the rule of the day, then we would never have interracial marriage or have abolished slavery. Because of it, we still have inequitable gay rights and Don't Ask Don't Tell. The willingness to be open to external ideas is what propels political progress and humanitarianism.

One, or even a few decisions based on the concept that the US Constitution is not infallible does not render the entire document null and void. If so, the Constitution would've been rendered directly invalid by any of the 27 Constitutional Amendments. Merely basing rulings on ideas gleaned from more successful international laws (ones that are successful, not the ones that have failed), does not even approach the concept of a Constitutional threat.

I might also mention that the US was/is embroiled in it's own abuse, oil, foreign intervention, and human rights failures and violations. I do not see the US as being morally and ethically superior to the UN under these circumstances. Nobody's perfect, but some ideas are better than others.

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

In order to respond to your lengthy post, I had to write a response that spanned three entries. To avoid spamming giza any further, it would probably be better to point out that your argument is based almost entirely on the following false pretenses:

- The Constitution was altered, was in danger of being altered, or was invalidated.
- A new law was enacted.
- The UN was involved.

None of the above occurred. A law was merely declared unconstitutional due, only in part, to international considerations.

Please see the following review of the decision at law.com:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1109597699575

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you should turn off the setting that sends you email every time you receive a comment. I tend to write/delete/rewrite many times. It was not my intent to spam you.

I suppose I need to quote your previous comments...

"I didn't say that any of the above were happening..."

- The Constitution was altered, was in danger of being altered, or was invalidated.

"...IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, and to treat it as something less IS to render it meaningless."

- A new law was enacted.

"What I'm saying is that you shouldn't be in effect imposing new laws based on what is essentially an extra-constitutional process."

- The UN was involved.

"We're a nation of laws, not a vassal of the UN and a slave to world opinion." (followed by an unrelated tirade against the UN)

Rather than join another attempt at diverting the topic, I'll just refer back to my original comments that disagree with the ideals of isolationism and mention again that enforcement based on what-ifs and theoretical doomsday scenarios do not a happy country make.

Now that we've come full circle, I promise I won't spam your emailbox any further. :)

[nius.livejournal.com]

I did not RTFA, and I don't care to - however, an aside would be that courts are bound to make decisions based only on the law cited as violated, and the evidence presented in court.

If a judge (or jury) is using internet research to learn more about a case than is presented in the courtroom, this is illegal, and a violation of the rights of the accused.

[giza.livejournal.com]

What if they used the Internet (or a legal library, of course) to research precedent on a particular case? Isn't that allowed?

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

I asked a lawyer. Quote:

Me: "To what degree is a Supreme Court judge prohibited from researching a case outside of the words and ideas presented within the courtroom?"

Response: "I don't believe there are any formal limits on that. Typically judges are prohibited from going out and examining facts without the parties present, but cases that reach the supreme court are usually not there for factual issues.
"By way of example, in Miranda the Court looked at a mountain of social science evidence and studies to decide that the warning was necessary - the evidence was about police brutality and coercive practices. They looked at a police department handbook that was completely unrelated to the case.
"In practice, everyone files amicus briefs and so there are no surprises."

[nius.livejournal.com]

Nifty, thanks :)

[kinkyturtle.livejournal.com]

Now I'm picturing Tom DeLay as a troll.

[TomDeLay] LOL INTERNET
[TomDeLay] OMFG the internets is SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!11!!!1one!