Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts says his decisions will not be influenced by rulings or laws in other countries, despite a growing trend among other justices to pay more attention to foreign courts.
In response to a question during his confirmation hearings this week by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., author of the WND Book “Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders,” Roberts agreed consideration of foreign legal precedents was inappropriate in making rulings in U.S. cases.
“I do not think it’s a good approach,” Roberts said.
Coburn, in setting up his question, said he believed any justice who cites foreign law in rulings should be subject to impeachment and removal from the bench.
Roberts disagreed on that point, however, saying he would not accuse such judges or justices of violating their oath. Instead, he said, he “would accuse them of getting it wrong on that point, and I would hope to sit down with them and debate it and reason about it.”
In recent years, some high court members have cited foreign legal precedent when ruling on U.S. cases, a trend that upsets some court watchers.
One of the high court’s conservative voices, Justice Antonin Scalia, has spoken against the practice.
“The standards of decency of American society. Not the standards of decency of the world. Not the standards of decency of other countries that do not have our background, that do not have our culture, that do not have our moral views,” he said during an informal debate with colleague Steven Breyer, who supports the consideration of foreign rulings in high court cases. “Of what conceivable value, as authoritative [source], would foreign law be?”
Breyer, for his part, argued it was appropriate to at least consider what other courts were saying about similar issues.
“Am I influenced by that? I am at least interested in reading it and the fact that this has gone on all over the world, and people have come to roughly similar conclusions, in my opinion, was a reason for thinking that is at least the kind of issue that maybe we ought to hear in our court, because I thought our people in this country are not that much different than people in other places,” Breyer said.
In March 2004, some Republican House members drafted a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of Congress that it was improper for the Supreme Court to use foreign legal precedence when deciding cases. It had 50 co-sponsors, MSNBC.com reported.
“This resolution advises the courts that it is improper for them to substitute foreign law for American law or the American Constitution,” Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., said, adding he also believed such behavior warranted impeachment.
“To the extent they deliberately ignore Congress’ admonishment, they are no longer engaging in ‘good behavior’ in the meaning of the Constitution and they may subject themselves to the ultimate remedy, which would be impeachment,” said Feeney. “I don’t think there’s any interest in the majority members of Congress in impeaching justices, but there is a huge interest in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and we want the justices to recognize that and to follow it.”
Besides Breyer, Justice Anthony Kennedy also has decided some issues based on foreign legal precedent.
And retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in remarks quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, said in October 2004 she believed justices would, “over time … rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.”
Related stories:
O’Connor: U.S. must rely on foreign law
Justice: Can Constitution make it in global age?
