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.”
From 1990 through 2002, for instance, the Canadian Supreme Court cited decisions of the United States Supreme Court about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since, the annual citation rate has fallen by half, to about six.
I think this says more about the world than it does the USSC.
Jeffersonian took the words right from my fingertips.
Another New York Times report that slams America and the Bush Administration. No wonder American influence is wanning. We are our own worst enemy!
I’m shocked that this made the NYT with all of the breathless, in-depth reporting on Sarah Palin’s tanning habits crowding out less-important scoops.
[i]All the news that fits.[/i]
The interesting thing about this article is that it compares by implication the Canadian and American judiciaries. In fact, they are not comparable, except in terms of gross functional characters. Canada doesn’t have a constitution in the US sense, and has no comprehensive Bill of Rights. The judiciary in Canada is practically unfettered in its ability to reinterpret and set aside laws, at least until the Parliament comes up with a new judicial appointment that can be relied upon to reverse whatever precedent is now unpopular.
Finally, the NYT shirks not in its imaginative approach to jurisprudence:
[blockquote] “Most justices of the United States Supreme Court do not cite foreign case law in their judgments,†Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote in the Harvard Law Review in 2002. “They fail to make use of an important source of inspiration, one that enriches legal thinking, [b]makes law more creative[/b], and strengthens the democratic ties and foundations of different legal systems.â€[/blockquote]
That is breathtaking in its presumption.
The article does end with a bit of sense.
Anne-Marie was in a print interview a year or two back i recently saw cited because she said, in response to a question, “What exactly do you mean by the Bush Doctrine?”
I thought it was kind of funny, that.
Back to prayers for the Duncans, and for us all.
Bovine scatology…
Not surprised. Our president barely believes in the rule of law.
There’s no there there with this story. The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, not look to foreign countries’ laws.
John, you’re confused. Rule of Law, yes. Rule of unelected lawyers to make legislation that can’t pass democratic muster, maybe not so much. . .
#2
Ditto.
What is odd about these comments, in their near universal assumption that Americans having nothing to learn from judges in other common law jurisdictions and from other jurisdictions applying rights from the same tradition as America’s, is that they are on a board devoted to a denomination centred in Europe, and not America.
It is precisely this sort of insularity and lack of international collegiality which has done such damage to the whole concept of a worldwide Anglican Communion.
#12 – no Andrew, I mean defying the rule of law that even John Ashcroft and others found offensive. I mean defying congress and making the executive into a monarch.
I don’t mean opposing principles such as precedent or overturning many years of law, such as banning affirmative action, congressional laws on the environment, or making the state into a theocracy.
I mean a president who thinks the law doesn’t have anything to do with him. Or at least a Vice President.
Indulging in a little overheated hyperbole, John?