Foreign Influences on the Supreme Court

The federal courts have handed down some extraordinary rulings for which it is difficult if not impossible to find any basis in the United States Constitution. Americans are shocked by decisions that ban the Pledge of Allegiance in schools and ban the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings and parks. These cases have not yet reached the U.S. Supreme Court, but Americans are concerned because several Supreme Court justices rely on foreign sources for their rulings rather than our Constitution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy couldn't find any language in the U.S. Constitution to justify over-turning the Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, so he invoked "other authorities" in "Western civilization," namely, the European Court of Human Rights, which invalidated EU countries' domes-tic laws against homosexual conduct. Kennedy also cited an amicus brief filed by Mary Robinson, a former United Nations high commissioner.

Kennedy wrote, "The right the petitioners seek [to engage in sodomy] has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries," and he emphasized the "values we share with a wider civilization." Kennedy relied on an "emerging awareness . . . in matters pertaining to sex." Many observers are predicting that "emerging awareness" is the prelude to court approval of same-sex marriages. In dissent, Justice Scalia called Kennedy's words "dangerous dicta," adding that the Supreme Court "should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans." But regrettably, four justices joined in Kennedy's majority decision.

To justify the decision in favor of race preferences in the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action case called Grutter v. Bollinger, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer cited a United Nations treaty. They wrote: "The Inter-national Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified by the United States in 1994 . . . endorses special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate develop-ment and protection of certain racial groups . . . for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

That UN treaty was signed by President Lyndon Johnson and ratified by the Senate 30 years later under pressure from Bill Clinton. Now, suddenly, it is dictating U.S. college admissions.

Justice Breyer, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, opined that "globalization" is having an impact on the courts and Breyer speculated on "the challenge" of whether our U.S. Constitution "fits into the governing documents of other nations." In Knight v. Florida, Breyer said it was "useful" to con-sider court decisions on allowable delays of execution in India, Jamaica and Zimbabwe!

Justice John Paul Stevens' decision in Atkins v. Virginia cited an amicus brief from the European Union. Justice Scalia dissented: "The views of other nations can-not be imposed upon Americans." But five justices did impose foreign views on us.

What are Congress and the American people going to do about these activist judges?