[OT]
RexDart, I must confess some confusion. Having a background in Australian law, I’m quite accustomed to our courts refering to overseas judgments. They may not form binding law in Australia, but reference to the common law of foreign countries is quite routine. Judges clearly find value in citing the logic taken by foreign courts, even if they don’t rely on it.
My question to American lawyers is, is this so uncommon in the US?
[/OT]
Arrggh! I meant to hit preview.
His death at this time may be considerd by some to be poetic, but it is not at all ironic.
With Fred Phelps it would be even less so.
Now that I think about it, I believe you’re right, Maud’Dib. Never mind.
Rexdart, as someone with a background in American and international law, I’m with Narrad. In every other country in the world, it is routine to refer to decisions from other jurisdictions, especially where the decision comes from a common legal tradition. It’s no more disturbing than courts in one state referring to decisions in another state as persuasive but non-binding. Moreover, international law is binding on all courts in the United States, and decisions of international human rights courts are authoritative interpretations of the rights the courts are obligated to uphold.
Oh, and I’m not at all sad that old man’s left this world. And the Supreme Court decision was long overdue. It’s about time that those of us who care about other people’s rights and freedoms have something to celebrate.
The reference to the European court decision was to refute the idea that anti-sodomy laws had broad support thoutghout the European common law tradition. The original sodomy case Bowers v Hardwick relied heavily on the idea that there were long and deep (sorry) roots to anti-sodomy laws that were therefore enshined in commo law. That the European court rejected sodomy laws is important in concluding that despite whatevr origins in commone law or tradition sodomy laws might have had, Europe, the originator of European common law ideals, ruled that the common law does not require that sodomy be illegal.
As for Thurmond kicking the bucket…good. I hope that there is a hell and that he’s roasting in it.
Wow
This has been a good day.
Yes, Otto, I came back to this thread after reading the decision morew closely to make that general point. The Bowers decision relied on the Bible and ancient Roman law for support, which represents the roots of the civil law system, but civil law countries disagree with the US Supreme Court’s interpretation. To clarify, all of Europe has a civil law system, based on Roman law, while the United States and former British colonies derived from the British common law system. US Supreme Court justices are not competent to interpret civil law.
He was a toothless old man. Let him be. Or at least try to contain your glee. History passed him by. He was a dried up relic. There’s lots of better targets for animosity.
Please tell me you are not a lawyer.
Not a bad day at all.
Apparently, chula may not be a lawyer, but has a background in law.
Also, chula has some very odd ideas, as far as I can tell, about what international laws mean to the US and what decisions of international courts mean. Remember, we do still have the death penalty for people under 18.
Yes, U.S. courts should NEVER pay any attention to anything that goes on outside U.S. borders unless directed by a reliable conservative to do so.
:rolleyes:
Doubtless the Euro reference and overall gist of the case will be hyped during this next election cycle as “proof” to gullible right-leaning voters that we are quickly becoming the slaves of a liberal one-world government.
“Ah, but if we could only elect George W. Bush in '04, then we could finally get some proper-thinking judges on the Supreme Court - judges who actually respect our bedrock Christian values … Not like those homo-lovers that Bill and Hillary Clinton put in there.”
As for Strom Thurmond, quit your merriment. It’s not like Helms or Reagan died.
Wouldn’t that be * necrophilia *?
Now that’s funny!
Well, Strom Thurmond fought for much of his life to unfairly restrict the rights of many people, which is wrong even if some of the people he oppressed are showing themselves to be no better than he was. Here’s hoping racism and homophobia die someday, and that they stay dead.
I’m still laughing from the thread title.
One less dinosaur in the house…er…Senate.
Please show where any black or gay people supported legislation to treat him as a second-class citizen?
Oh, do you mean that you are miffed that some people are treating his death with levity? Why? The man was an unrepentant hater his entire life; am I supposed to weep tears for a man who ran on “keep the blacks subjugated” platfrom in 1948? A man who supported every cause that I detest?
I will not shed hypocritical, crocodile tears for a man I despised.