The U.S. Supreme Court has been all too eager in recent years to refer to foreign laws, foreign courts and even foreign public opinion in making its rulings. That is troubling because rulings in American courts ought to be based on the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws, not on those of other nations.
In 2005, for instance, the high court’s liberal majority cited “international opinion” and “evolving standards of decency” when it ruled 5-4 that people who commit murder before turning 18 may not be executed. Whatever your views may be on the death penalty, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids the execution of a murderer who committed his crimes before age 18. If such executions are to be prohibited, it is the job of state and federal lawmakers, not activists on the Supreme Court, to outlaw them.
But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recently tried to justify the court’s references to foreign law. He argued that justices are entitled to read whatever they like — including foreign rulings — as they come up with their official opinions.
That misses the point. No one is suggesting that justices don’t have the same right as other Americans to read what they like and to hold whatever personal opinions suit them. But Justice Breyer went a step further, saying it is appropriate to cite foreign decisions in making U.S. rulings, even if those foreign decisions are not actually “binding.”
That’s wrong. When the justices are issuing rulings, they should rule strictly on the basis of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws. If the actions of foreign courts truly are not binding, why cite them at all?
Our nation is suffering from too little — not too much — adherence to our Constitution. It is past time that we started respecting and adhering to the wise rules laid down in that brilliant document.