• Home
  • News
  • Ginsburg Doesn’t Understand ‘Brouhaha’ About Foreign Law References

U.S. Supreme Court

Ginsburg Doesn’t Understand ‘Brouhaha’ About Foreign Law References

Posted Apr 13, 2009 5:23 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she is baffled by the controversy surrounding some justices’ reference to foreign law in their U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Ginsburg said. She spoke at a symposium on her jurisprudence at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, according to stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The Supreme Court has cited foreign law in decisions striking down a law barring homosexual sodomy and in restricting the reach of the death penalty. The controversy at one time spurred a move in Congress, since abandoned, to bar the practice, according to the Post.

Ginsburg said there could be a misunderstanding about the use of foreign law. Decision of other courts may be instructive, but they are not used as precedent, she said. "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?" she asked. She suggested that hostility to foreign law references “is a passing phase.”

The Post says Ginsburg stuck to familiar themes in her appearance. “On stage for a question-and-answer session conducted by friendly law professors, Ginsburg was a tiny figure in black with bold jewelry and a luxurious stole,” the Post reports. “She moved slowly, but her voice was strong and her words precise. She made no mention, as she had in Boston, that an opening on the court could come ‘soon.’ Nor did she talk about her own plans, which she has indicated in the past include at least another five years on the court.”

In a videotaped tribute, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. offered "warm congratulations on the occasion of your reaching the midpoint of your tenure" on the court.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Apr 13, 2009 6:26 AM CST

During the Bush years, the Justices perhaps felt that if they were to apply any law, they would need to look abroad.

Flag this comment

2.

J.D.
Apr 13, 2009 7:51 AM CST

If she doesn’t understand the concern, then she isn’t all that bright.

Flag this comment

3.

William Stanley Daniel
Apr 13, 2009 11:13 AM CST

Justice Ginsburg, of course, is quite correct in
her view.  Unless we are citing Native American
Indian Law, then all citations stem from “foreign”
law.  English common law is “foreign” to U. S.
law.  Think about it!  We should rely on keen
judicial insights from all over the world, no
matter from where that wisdom comes, and
rely on it as instructive or even persuasive,
just not as binding precedent, which we duly
reserve for our own law developed here..

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
Apr 13, 2009 3:06 PM CST

Yes, and when someone stones to death a rape victim, we can just look to middle east court holdings as persuasive and instructive authority to prove that she deserved it. Uh, huh…. Such keen insight!

Flag this comment

5.

J.D.
Apr 15, 2009 12:03 PM CST

Here’s some precedent for Ginsburg:

Taliban execute teenager, man for eloping
Afghan clerics impose death penalty after pair are accused of immoral acts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30205074/from/ET/

“Taliban gunmen executed a young couple in southern Afghanistan for trying to elope, shooting them with rifles in front of a crowd…”

“The woman, 19, and the man, 21, were accused by the [muslim judges] of immoral acts, and a council of conservative clerics [is there any other type?] decided that the two should be killed, said Ghulam Dastagir Azad, the governor of the southwestern province of Nimroz.”

“Riflemen in the remote district of Khash Rod shot the man and woman with AK-47s Monday during a public execution.”

Flag this comment

6.

J.D.
Apr 15, 2009 12:24 PM CST

And here’s some more precedent for the confused Justice:

Afghans Throw Stones at Women Protesting Rape in Marriage Law

“KABUL—(AP) A group of some 1,000 Afghans swarmed a demonstration of 300 women protesting against a new marriage law on Wednesday. The women were pelted with small stones.

“The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse — a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515980,00.html

So after you kill your daughter in the backyard to prevent her from eloping, and after raping your wife, you can present these holdings to Justice Ginsburg and she will find them persuasive.

Flag this comment

7.

JAG in Ohio
Apr 18, 2009 9:39 PM CST

# 3 Posted by William Stanley Daniel: “Justice Ginsburg, of course, is quite correct in
her view.”
—-
Mr. Daniel’s argument is the most persuasive to me. Several USSC Justices over the decades have quoted law from other jurisdictions. The Middle East is not the only jurisdiction outside the U.S.
—-
Just Another Guy

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.