Comments on: Blog Round-up, Tuesday, May 31st http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/blog-round-up-tuesday-may-31st/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Vote for Judges http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/blog-round-up-tuesday-may-31st/comment-page-1/#comment-6949 Vote for Judges Tue, 31 May 2005 14:48:28 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/blog-round-up-tuesday-may-31st/#comment-6949 <strong>Foreign v. International</strong> Is there a move afoot to blur the distinction between international law and foreign-law citations in judicial opinions? Foreign v. International

Is there a move afoot to blur the distinction between international law and foreign-law citations in judicial opinions?

]]> By: Simon http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/blog-round-up-tuesday-may-31st/comment-page-1/#comment-6948 Simon Tue, 31 May 2005 14:22:36 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/blog-round-up-tuesday-may-31st/#comment-6948 So far, I think Orin is winning. Kelly just really doesn't seem to be grappling with this idea that maybe foreign law is simply of no relevance to constitutional interpretation. Which seems strange, because you'd think that if he can describe an originalist position, he should be able to understand it, even while disagreeing with it, yet he clearly doesn't. I think that the best response was one of the comments to Kelly's first post (not mine), which ran as follows: <i>Kelly: Indeed, [Justice Breyer] admits the possibility that we might just learn something. David: That's one of those statements designed to sound profound, without actually making any sense. We "might just learn something"? Who could be against "learning something"? So it must be a good idea, right? Well, no. We "might just learn something" from watching MTV, investigating foreign law, or taking a class on automotive repair. All of those are perfectly valid activities. But none of them have anything to do with the Supreme Court's job in deciding constitutional cases.</i> As I said a few days ago, I think Justice Scalia's explanation of why foreign law is irrelevant is wholly convincing, but I'd love to hear a decent case made that explains why foreign law IS relevant; neither Kelly - nor Justice Breyer - has yet done so. So far, I think Orin is winning. Kelly just really doesn’t seem to be grappling with this idea that maybe foreign law is simply of no relevance to constitutional interpretation. Which seems strange, because you’d think that if he can describe an originalist position, he should be able to understand it, even while disagreeing with it, yet he clearly doesn’t.

I think that the best response was one of the comments to Kelly’s first post (not mine), which ran as follows:

Kelly:
Indeed, [Justice Breyer] admits the possibility that we might just learn something.

David:
That’s one of those statements designed to sound profound, without actually making any sense. We “might just learn something”? Who could be against “learning something”? So it must be a good idea, right?

Well, no. We “might just learn something” from watching MTV, investigating foreign law, or taking a class on automotive repair. All of those are perfectly valid activities. But none of them have anything to do with the Supreme Court’s job in deciding constitutional cases.

As I said a few days ago, I think Justice Scalia’s explanation of why foreign law is irrelevant is wholly convincing, but I’d love to hear a decent case made that explains why foreign law IS relevant; neither Kelly – nor Justice Breyer – has yet done so.

]]>