Foreign Friend of the Court (Amicus) briefs filed with the Supreme Court in Hamden are hostile to the U.S. Constitution and rule of law.
A trend has been established by Justices Ginsberg, O'Connor, Breyer and Kennedy---to disregard the U.S. Constitution and U.S. rule of law as the basis for their legal rulings---in favor of foreign law and evolving moral and social standards of the times in which we live.
This trend has encouraged European secular-humanist, multi-culturalist politicians and socialists---to a degree that they are now filing Amicus (Friend of the Court) briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court to influence cases involving U.S. foreign policy and conduct of war.
The U.S. Constitution requires that Justices of the Supreme Court base their decisions on the laws and Constitution of this country only. The Justices who have based their decisions on foreign opinion and law have violated their Oaths of Office and betrayed the American people.
In "Rasul, an amicus brief was submitted by 175 "members of both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The Supreme Court ruled against the Bush Administration in that case---setting a dangerous precedent that needs to be struck down in Hamdan.
The U.S. Congress needs to investigate these violations of the Constitution and perform their check and balance oversight over the conduct and job performance of Supreme Court Justices. Justices can be---and should be---impeached if they disregard the rule of law and refuse to follow the Constitution as it is written.
No one appointed and approved Supreme Court Justices to place themselves above the law that they are Constitutionally required to interpret. Nothing gives them the right or power make new law from the bench---to suit themselves, their own political and social preferences, or their increasingly globalist views.
Read more below and here.
"Not So Friendly Amici: Look who's filing Supreme Court briefs now."
"CONSERVATIVE LEGAL SCHOLARS HAVE LONG warned that judges' reliance on foreign opinions might undermine the mechanism for setting domestic policy under the Constitution. Now, for the second time, a friend of the court brief has been submitted to the Supreme Court by foreign politicians in a case relating to detainees at Guantánamo, suggesting that constitutional control over foreign policy could be similarly jeopardized....
It should perhaps be unsurprising that foreign legislators are now submitting amicus briefs designed to pressure the judiciary. After all, it appears that the federal government's most vocal proponents of respect for the international community's views can be found not in the State Department, but on the Supreme Court. In a 2005 speech to the American Society of International Law, Justice Ginsburg quoted the Declaration of Independence (complete with gender-sensitive modifications) to assure the audience that "we will continue to accord 'a decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind' as a matter of comity and in a spirit of humility." Justices Breyer and Kennedy and retired Justice O'Connor have made similar remarks....
There are sound reasons that foreign governments have heretofore generally refrained from weighing in on the judiciary's interpretation of U.S. foreign policy obligations. Federal courts have long recognized that the president should function as the sole representative of the country's foreign policy.... (Thomas) Jefferson explained that the Constitution left foreign policy in the hands of the executive.
As more parties purport to shape our foreign relations, effective diplomacy becomes more difficult. And a look at the amicus brief's signatories reveals that some of the foreign parties attempting to guide the judiciary are hostile to the United States and the global war on terror...."