High court justices hold rare public debate

[Crackingham]

Shed of their black robes, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer engaged in a lively and, at times, amusing debate Thursday over whether foreign court rulings should be used in U.S. decisions.

"We don't have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world, and we never have," said Scalia, who is one of the strongest voices on the high court against looking to foreign rulings to decide American cases.

Breyer countered, "You can learn something" from foreign countries. He said it is a matter of "opening your eyes to things that are going on elsewhere." He said he does not consider foreign decisions "determinative" but "simply, from time to time, relevant."

<snip>

Supreme Court justices increasingly have referred to foreign law but not without dissent in their own ranks or public controversy. In 2003, when the majority struck down state anti-sodomy laws, it mentioned that the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the right of homosexual adults to engage in sexual conduct. A year earlier, when the majority barred the execution of mentally retarded convicts, it noted that "within the world community" such executions are "overwhelmingly disapproved."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=701&e=1&u=/usatoday/20050114/ts_usatoday/highcourtjusticesholdrarepublicdebate

[Spinzonner]

1. Scalia doesn't consider anything outside his own narrow minded

little brain relevant, much less determinative

[Cerridwen]

2. So Scalia agrees there are no "moral absolutes?"

"We don't have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world, and we never have," said Scalia

[Kagemusha]

3. None save the US'.

And God's.