What is the Procedure for Removing a Supreme?
United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg furnishes grounds to ask inasmuch as she has demonstrated that she misunderstands the fundamental requirements of both American laws and the function of the court on which she serves.
I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.
* * *
Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
But if the court permits itself to be influenced by the reasoning of a foreign precedent and then shape or reshape an American law on that basis, doesn’t that have exactly the same effect as if the court were were bound by that foreign law? Further, shouldn’t the American Constitution, not a foreign law, play the primary role in the decisions rendered by American courts?
She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.
So Justice Ginsburg believes that the US Supreme Court should have influence outside of US borders? That sounds colonialistic. Shouldn’t the court aspire to influence only American law?
The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
Is the Supreme Court involved in a popularity contest or some sort of global rap session? That’s a section of Article Three, Section One that we appear to have overlooked all these centuries.
On the plus side, this may shed light on certain rulings by the US Supreme Court. Blatantly erroneous decisions become inevitable if the eyes of one too many justices are focused on far away horizons instead of on the nearby document that should be guiding them.