Waning influence of US Supreme Court

[quote=“NYT: U.S. Court Is Now Guiding Fewer Nations”]Judges around the world have long looked to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for guidance, citing and often following them in hundreds of their own rulings since the Second World War.

But now American legal influence is waning. Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its decisions should ever cite foreign law, a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to pay attention to the writings of American justices.

“One of our great exports used to be constitutional law,” said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. “We are losing one of the greatest bully pulpits we have ever had.”
The rise of new and sophisticated constitutional courts elsewhere is one reason for the Supreme Court’s fading influence, legal experts said. The new courts are, moreover, generally more liberal than the Rehnquist and Roberts courts and for that reason more inclined to cite one another.

Another reason is the diminished reputation of the United States in some parts of the world, which experts here and abroad said is in part a consequence of the Bush administration’s unpopularity around the world. Foreign courts are less apt to justify their decisions with citations to cases from a nation unpopular with their domestic audience.[/quote]

That’s tremendously… encouraging. Oh sure, it’s a major disappointment that the US is no longer such a beacon in this (too) area, but encouraging in that not everyone is drinking the koolaid. It’s a marvelous argument against global gov’t: imagine if there weren’t so many healthier alternatives.

Still, supreme courts are so influential… to lose the attention of so much of the world, that’s a very real loss of influence, particularly given the withdrawal into border forts of so much of the foreign service.

What do f.com’s many lawyers make of this?

Perhaps it has to do with the Bush administration showing that you don’t need to ask permission any more to execute an law. Just do what you want, so now everyone is following that lead…

Yeah, the liberal justices set some great precedents for others to emulate. Hugo Black and the KKK. William O. Douglas marrying four women and neglecting his own children (not to mention his dubious work for the Parvin Foundation). Chief Justice Earl Warren [a very liberal Republican] interning Japanese in California. Contrast this to Republican Charles Even Hughes, who was one of the co-founders in 1927 of the National Conference on Christians and Jews and who vocally opposed the Ku Klux Klan, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Semitism in the 1920s and 1930s.

I’ll take the restraint of the Burger, Rehnquist or Roberts over the activism of the earlier court.

Way off topic, Chewycorns. And Rehnquist’s court is specifically mentioned as one that took note of jurisprudence elsewhere.

I tend to agree with the assessment of Charles Fried, the law professor at Harvard who served as solicitor general in the Reagan administration. He mentions that Courts have been citing foreign law forever, but sparingly, for very good reason. It is an invitation to bolster conclusions reached on other grounds. It leads to more impressionistic, undisciplined adjudication.

These international lawyer elites and dilettantes admire the Canadian Supreme court? Unaccountable, elitist and unelected bodies? Would never had guessed that. Wonder if they’ll be citing the Human Rights Commissions in their opinions. Or perhaps the crazy precedent of redressing Israel’s Settlement Policies in Canadian Courts. :loco: :loco:

Is this the same land that Israel fought the Palestinians for in the 6 day war? If so, why is it Palestinian land? Israel was attacked and kicked ass. Why isn’t it Israeli land? Or am I just f***ed up again tonight?

another reason is probably the US’ disregard of the ICC.

A declining role?
Perhaps we should consider the role of this 3rd role of a democratic society. Their role is simply to consider the constitionality of any particular law that comes before them on request. They don’t go willy nilly looking for things to look at. There is a procedure that must be followed to get an issue before them and it will always require somebody being offended at a particular rule that they feel infringes on their narrowly limited constitutional rights. Their rulings are sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative, depending on the siting judges. But they are the LAST WORD in interpreting the constitution. Do I agree with them? Not usually. For example, Our document says I can keep and bear arms. Yet, they point out that they were talking about a “well regulated militia” shall be able to keep and bear arms. Yet when we look at their times, we find that a “well regulated militia” was designed to fight or control the government and was consisted of regular people with guns. Now, should the government be afraid of the people or should people be afraid of their government? BTW, if the government has ABM’s should I be able to buy them? How about a nuke? If my government has them, should I be able to have them to protect me from my government.
Try strapping on a gun and walkng on any U.S. street. You will either get shot by police or arrested. Probably shot. Yet, I recall as a young man stopping into a pub in St. Maries, Idaho and seeing horses tied to a rail out front and men standing at the bar with sidearms. I never recall any rowdys giving anybody any shit. Wonder why.
This constituiton chooses the later for good reason, yet, I feel it is being slowly eroded by government. THe Supreme Court will act on this issue in short order. Maybe 5 years but it is coming. I sadly feel with this court that we will loose yet another basic right.

I don’t think that’s true. Maybe in certain places in the US, but definitely not every where. In fact, conceal and carry laws are becoming more and more common. My home state of Minnesota recently passed a law allowing you to carry a gun most places.