THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™

Slightly Left Of Center… But Always On Target!!!

← →

Supreme Court Justice Antonin (R-Far-Right) Scalia Cites FOREIGN LAW In Custody Case

January 12th, 2010 · 11 Comments · Constitution, National Politics, Politics, Rants, The Courts, Think, Vice President Cheney

Antonin Scalia Invokes Foreign Law Shocker Supreme Court Justice Antonin (R Far Right) Scalia Cites FOREIGN LAW In Custody CaseSCOTUS Justices Do Double-Take As “Mr. Don’t Cite Foreign Law In The Supreme Court!” Cites Foreign Law In The Supreme Court Of The United States…

That’s right, folks — Richard [The] Dick Cheney’s famous, long-time golfing buddy (Google), SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, who has famously chided his fellow “Oh-So-Robed-Ones” for citing international law has just cited — yep — international law (The AP) in a child custody battle. Shocked at the notion a man cut much in the same mold as Fox News‘ newest “Contributor”, Sarah “The Barracuda” Palin politically speaking would flip-flop on such an issue? Not MOI (yep — part French and not ashamed).

A KEY QUOTE FROM SCALIA ON THE CASE:

… if it’s a case of some ambiguity, we should try to go along with what seems to be the consensus in other countries that are signatories to the treaty.”

For those who are thinking, “They must be selling snowcones in hell”, I’m thinking more like — HYPOCRITE. Or maybe even INCOMPETENT and the time has come for Sir Antonin to join his former Veep buddy on those links till death do them part.

***

  • Share/Bookmark

You Might Enjoy These Related Posts Also:

Tags: ························

11 Comments so far ↓

  • Joe Lovell // Jan 12, 2010 at 9:56 PM

    Wow, Guns, you are really having to stretch these days, aren’t you? As I recall Scalia balks at the lefts “well, gee, England banned guns, and Australia banned guns, so it must be a good thing for us too” and other cases where on matters totally internal to the US leftists want to apply foreign law to the US.

    But this case seems to actually involve other countries, in which case looking at international law makes sense.

    The court is taking its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking a child to another country without the other parent’s permission.

    “The purpose of a treaty is to have everybody doing the same thing,” Scalia said, “and I think, if it’s a case of some ambiguity, we should try to go along with what seems to be the consensus in other countries that are signatories to the treaty.”

    And the case seems to be really squirrely, involving citizens of the UK and the US, and a Chilean court decison:

    British father who accused his estranged American wife of violating Chilean law and a court order in Chile by taking their son to Texas without his consent. The child, born in Hawaii and now 14, is a U.S. citizen.

    Timothy Abbott asked an American court to order the child returned to Chile, based on the treaty. The mother argued that she has exclusive custody of the boy and that U.S. courts are powerless under the treaty to order his return. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the mother, Jacquelyn Abbott.

    and also raises a lot of other questions and complications.

    The high court appeared inclined to side with Timothy Abbott, although some justices raised concerns that a decision in his favor in this case could lead to undesirable results in others.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wondered who would decide whether a child should be returned “if you have the mother taking her daughter from, say, a country where she would be forced to be raised under Sharia (strict Islamic) law.”

    Justice Stephen Breyer said he worries about the case of a father who shouldn’t have access to his child, but who lives in a country that forbids one parent from taking a child to another country without the other parent’s consent. “Even Frankenstein’s monster is considered to have custody for the purposes of this,” Breyer said, despite a family law judge ruling, “‘Don’t let him near that child.’”

    So, it doesn’t seem that Justice Scalia is saying “Gee…we need to apply the laws of other countries in the US” but rather that in cases that involve multiple countries there needs to be some order and commonality.

    • SJ // Jan 13, 2010 at 7:46 AM

      @Joe Lovell,

      For the GTL, it beats showing the latest healthcare polls and his boy Obama’s approval ratings.

      • CLD // Jan 13, 2010 at 11:21 AM

        @SJ, Or bashing Bush, the GOP, Sarah Palin (0h, he just did that in his last column…opps), big coporations, capitalism…am I forgeting any of the liberal talking points? Hey, side note, or as Joe does often, off topic…

        Anyone notice the senate race in Mass? The Dem running just had a HUGE fund rasier in DC, with all the usual suspects. Including, big Pharma corps….Huh? I thought is was the “rich fat cats” in the GOP that had had Big Pharma in thier back pocket…GTL?

        • SJ // Jan 13, 2010 at 1:59 PM

          @CLD,

          Honestly CLD, (and I know you know this) you can’t govern by poll watching. In fact, some very unpopular things will have to be done to reduce our national debt, for example.

          However, that didn’t stop the GTL from hyping a poll a few months ago to promote Obamacare as something a majority of Americans want. Obviously, the polls were very important then. And now…not so much, eh? :-)

        • The GTL™ // Jan 13, 2010 at 2:01 PM

          @CLD, Heh… CLD, my friend… you haven’t been reading this site very long apparently or you’d have noted I’ve often bashed the Democrats for being in the pockets of big pharma and big oil, bro ;-)

    • SJ // Jan 13, 2010 at 2:05 PM

      @CLD,

      From a pure political standpoint, I’m wondering if a GOP win in Mass may help Democrats should Obamacare be stopped by filibuster. It could take a little edge off the coming November backlash (assuming they don’t screw more stuff up by then – a big assumption). I wonder if they realize it!

  • F&B // Jan 13, 2010 at 1:55 PM

    When you say “Hypocrite” do you mean that in the sense that democrats are Hypocrites because of the way they handled major gaffes by their own recently – like Sen. Reid’s blatantly racist comments about Obama, among others? Or in the sense that he is a hypocrite because you just don’t like him because he used to have an ‘R’ by his name?

    It’s funny, democrats are even Hypocritical in the way they use the word Hypocrite.

    CLD: The Michelle Malkin article is excellent, and straight to the heart of the issue.

  • David Scott // Jan 17, 2010 at 8:34 PM

    Thank you for this Article. Fathers’ right to be a meaningful part of their childrens’ lives, have been eroded to the point of non-existence. My research suggests that this is a phenomenon consistent throughout the industrialized nations. Children who are alienated from their fathers are more likely later in life to have emotional/behavioral problems, suffer from depression, drop out of school, fail in their jobs, and suffer from other social problems. I invite you to visit my site devoted to raising awareness on this growing problem: http://fathersprivilege.blogspot.com/

Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.