« Bipartisan Discursivity | Main | Automatons And The Laws »

What bugs Jon Kyl: he doesn't like when the Supreme Court refers to foreign law in reversing the decisions of Congress and state legislators in the United States.

Kyl: "It's an American constitution and its meaning, by its definition, cannot be determined with reference to foreign law."

What does Roberts think about it? What, if anything, is the proper role in U.S. Supreme Court decisions?

Roberts calls the Breyer/Scalia debate "illuminating." Says there are a couple of things "that cause concern on my part" about using foreign law.

"Judges...are appointed in a process that allows for participation in the electorate....If we're relying for a decision from a German judge for what our constituion means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge."

"Relying on foreign precedent doesn't confine judges. It...expands the discretion of the judge. It allows the judge to incorporate his or her personal preferences and cloak them with the authority of precedent."

Posted by Marc Ambinder | 02:39 PM