Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Administration says he is a strong defender of the Constitution, yet he argues for the inclusion of international law and precedent when deciding domestic cases on appeal before the US Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court? I see it as an either or position.
Are you going to provide any thoughts or just post links?
Where did you get that?
Read it while doing serious FLASH style research the other day. What, you don't believe it? Justice Bryer espouses that philosophy. As it suits them so do Justice Ginsburg and Justice Souter. I happen to think it is total BULL SHIT and the road to the ruin of this great country. But, it ain't so out of line for so called legal scholars. It isn't like I have called him a supporter of man boy love or something. I don't have your recall though so I will have to try to find my source again. You can stand down from the FOX NEWS Right Wing wacko watch though. It was fairly main stream. I say "fairly" because what passes for main stream now just doesn't hack it. No digging, no research. Not if it doesn't fit their template anyway. Most just parrot what the talking heads and official spokesmen say. The DEM comment and the GOP response. Gosh I am tired of that.
Simma downnow. Like I said, if I find it I will. I don't bookmark every morsel I find interesting. Busy day today. I'll see what I can find.How about sharing it with the rest of us?
The reason I ask is because while he seems to be a supporter of international law, including the ICC, I haven't seen anything where he thinks international law is 'dominant' over US law. And just so you know, the US takes into account international law and precedents in some cases already, taking from treaties and agreements we have signed.
Where did you get that?