The threat by an Afghan court to execute a former Muslim for converting to Christianity once again raises the question of the role of foreign laws and foreign court rulings in our own U.S. judicial system.
Actual artist rendition of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asleep during hearing |
When Ruth Bader Snoozeburg and her U.S. Supreme Court colleagues insist they should continue to look abroad at court rulings and foreign laws as inspiration for their own deliberations in American cases, they are probably not thinking about the Abdul Rahman case in Afghanistan.
Maybe they should.
Snoozeburg and the gang suggest we Americans can learn much by reviewing foreign precedents and foreign laws.
But which foreign countries do they have in mind? All of them? Should we take into account the workings of the Iranian court system? The Saudi system? The North Korean?
Or are Snoozeburg and the gang Euro-centric? Are they not multicultural enough to open their minds to the differing value systems the world has to offer?
Someone needs to ask Snoozeburg about the Rahman case – if a reporter can catch her between naps.
Does she think we have something to learn as a country, as a people, as Americans from the deliberations taking place in Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada's Sharia law courtroom in Afghanistan? If not, why not? Why do some foreign courts warrant our attention, while others do not? Why should we condemn the action of one foreign court, while looking for wisdom from others? How do we make distinctions between them? What are the rules governing such reviews?
No one on the U.S. Supreme Court – especially not Snoozeburg – will want to answer those questions.
In fact, they were first raised by Justice Antonin Scalia when foreign court influence was first suggested by his colleagues. He understood that his colleagues planned to pick and choose between the foreign-court rulings they liked and disliked. He understood they would pick and choose between the foreign judicial systems of which they approved and disapproved. He understood this whole focus on foreign laws and courts was just another way for justices and judges to arrive at whatever conclusion they wished.
Foreign courts and foreign laws are used simply to provide evidence to activist judges faced with an unyielding, non-living U.S. Constitution and the insufficiently pliable will of the American people.
Foreign courts and foreign laws give the activist judges another chance to impose their own will on Americans outside the rules of law and will of the people.
That's what Snoozeburg and her cronies are doing.
If we take their advice and open up the American judiciary to influence by foreign courts and laws, how long will it be before Snoozeburg – a former political director of the American Civil Liberties Union – is justifying the execution of converts to Christianity on the basis of an Afghan precedent?
I'm all for exporting the beauty of the U.S. constitutional system of government around the world. But I am not for importing the ways of foreign governments and courts into the United States. I'm not for it because it is not constitutional. I'm not for it because it is un-American. I'm not for it because the people, like Snoozeburg, who are so eager to look abroad for their inspiration, have another agenda entirely behind their actions.
They are constantly looking to expand their authority, to change our nation's laws and to impose their will on Americans – and looking abroad is just their latest excuse.
We need to remind Snoozeburg and her colleagues that before they read too many foreign briefing papers, they ought to spend a little more time with the American founding documents – especially the one we call "The Declaration of Independence."
That's right. America became a nation by declaring its independence from the Old World. And some of us don't want to go back.