Other Columns by Kevin Fobbs
Kevin Fobbs Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

The Supreme Court may not continue to be the supreme court of the land if the judicial philosophy of Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer of using foreign law rulings in adjudicating American cases is permitted to become standard practice by the justices.

Even as the confirmation battle rages over the US Senate hearing for D.C. Federal Appeals Court Judge John Robert's bid to become the next chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is another more pressing battle in our nation's capitol. Unfortunately it is silent and it is operating in a stealth mode within the corridors of the very court Judge Roberts hopes to ascend to. The battle is over the very lifeblood of our nation's legal framework, and the public may never be privy to it...until it is too late.

Most Americans have little understanding of the inner workings of the U.S. Supreme Court. For the most part it is only a building which becomes prominent in our lives when a celebrated decision such as whether or not the next person to take the oath of office is really the one who is legally chosen as was the case on December 12th of 2000. We took notice when the parents of Terri Schiavo fought to prevent the state of Florida from legally allowing a judge to murder their innocent daughter.

But right now out of the sight of most Americans is a quiet movement to allow the legal decision making process of the U.S. Supreme Court to incorporate judicial findings of law from countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands, Aruba or even Jamaica in determining American constitutional questions in cases that come before it. We may want to vacation in Jamaica but I don't think we want to have our cases decided on their legal precedents or Aruba, with their top notch legal sleuthing.

Seems far fetched? Well, maybe not for long.

You see, the Supreme Court of our nation has a small number of justices who feel very strongly that our constitutional Law, our American legal precedents, our American values which help to shape, help to build and construct the very foundation of American jurisprudence...well its just not good enough to use to assist the three justices in coming to an American made constitutional conclusion. Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer wish to look for their legal remedies outside our borders.

These three constitutional expert justices have decided that individually and in many ways collectively there should be some sort of global legal test. This is much like the Kerry presidential campaign where the losing presidential candidate invoked at the 11th hour of the campaign a sort of "Global Test" in which if any decision to go to war were to be made by the American president or invoked by Congress, which represents the will of the American public, we have to take a pause before another step were to be made by our government. According to this scenario the "Kerry Doctrine" would be invoked. The proposition of going to war would have to be submitted to some unnamed body of international global testers, who would decide whether or not, based upon their amassed wisdom or amassed level of corruption; .... i.e. see United Nations Oil for Food fund; this esteemed body of honored experts would decide for Americans if it were apropos to go to war to defend our freedom.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3 4