John Hinderaker: The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Lawrence v. Texas, that there is a constitutional right to commit acts of homosexual sodomy. Was this ruling informed by reference to foreign jurisprudence? If not, why not? On Ginsburg's approach, the justices apparently get to pick and choose when they will look abroad for guidance. And, if foreign guidance had been sought in the Lawrence case, would the justices have looked to the law in Muslim countries where commission of such acts is a capital crime? If not, why not? There is no coherent answer to these questions, and, Ginsburg does not offer one. In reality, reference to foreign law is nothing more than an ad hoc tool to be invoked or ignored at will by justices who want to advance a left-wing agenda.
Justice Holman: "I am not persuaded, even taking into account predicted future deterioration, that it is currently in the best interests of M to discontinue ventilation with the inevitable result that he will immediately die."
Evolutionary biologist David Haig: "If you think about the heart or the kidney, they're wonderful bits of engineering that work day in and day out for years and years."
Don't you just love it when an evolutionary biologist describes parts of a body as "wonderful bits of engineering." I know I do. Makes you wonder, who could have done such wonderful engineering?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I am also skeptical anytime someone uses foreign precedence to support domestic laws, because as you say, you can really pick and choose there.
ReplyDeleteBut if ever there were an issue to which "right to privacy/government off our backs" applies, it is private sexual contact between consenting adults.
You don`t have to like what people do behind closed bedroom doors, but it`s in everyone`s interest to keep the government from opening those doors, unless minors are involved.