It makes me sick that the
Supreme Court would even bother with amicus briefs filed by non-Americans and explicitly drawing on so-called international law. Enough is enough. Throw it away. Otherwise, our constitution isn't worth the sheep skin it's written on.
2 comments:
I agree with you (and Scalia) that the only foreign source of law that should be considered a legitimate basis for rulings be English common law and the other sources that were in place in the colonies by the time of the signing of the Constitution. But not allowing "non-Americans" to file amicus briefs is a bit extreme. For one, many filings are made on behalf of corporations whose "nationality" these days is never as clear-cut as once might have been the case. For another, it doesn't make sense that foreign nationals can be the subject of a case pending in the American legal system, or allowed access to American courts generally, and not be allowed to have supporting briefs filed on their behalf by other foreign nationals.
Fair enough, but non-Americans would have to couch their briefs in American caselaw, which would require a serious familiarity with the United States. My point about non-Americans was more about foreign nationals explicitly trying to interfere in the United States by introducing foreign legal traditions. In this context it is like foreign nationals introducing legislation in the U.S. Congress.
Post a Comment