Religious Right Soundbite "International Law"

I am a bit confused; what do they mean when they say they do not want judges using international law? I assume that they are talking in code but what is the code.

is beyond their control or ability to change at whim.

Similar to the Schiavo act that was rushed through congress, a bill of attainder though such things are forbidden in the constitution.

How can it be fair for the fascists if they can't change the rules ?

is the Bible.

Judges that use state Constitutions, the Federal Constitution, treaties sign by the United States, or the consensus of the international legal community, are "activist judges" - especially if they rule against the neocon fascists, and for freedom.

which, in a world where they use the bible to cut funding to help poor people could mean ANYTHING.

Thus it is INTERNATIONAL!

None of that "Blessed are the peacemakers..." crap, or "In my Father's house are many mansions..." b.s., or any of the other liberal ideas that make Christianity a religion of peace and justice.

perjudice aside what do Christian Conservatives hear when a politician says these words? What, of their, touchstone issues has "international law" been used against?

execute minors. International law was mentioned as one deciding factor in that ruling. Aside from that, much of the international law I'm aware of has to do with arms control, free trade, and human rights. We're talking about the Geneva Conventions, the war in Iraq, the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo, nuclear non-proliferation treaties, etc. It looks to me as if the religious right is upset about anything that threatens the Bush regime's ability to do as it wishes. They want our society to be remade, and they don't want any resistance, especially from them furriners overseas. :banghead:

their frame makes more sense now. Executing minors: I thought that it was a relativly recent entrant into their lexicon.

Check out Article 6. Any treaties that the USA enters into with foreign powers become the law of the land.

-- Monaco's laws are improperly put under this rubric, as are any laws from other countries. "International" for many, covers the semantic ground "foreign" used to, as was as what "international" used to. Recently somebody asked about favorite "international" cities ... by which s/he meant "foreign cities."

-- treaties and parts of treaties the US has signed and ratified and which are still acknowledged to be binding. (Some, like the ABM treaty, we signed and pulled out of, under the terms provided by the treaty itself.)

-- treaties and parts of treaties the US has not ratified, whether or not the US has signed them. This, for example, includes the capital punishment treaty referenced recently by SCOTUS and others concerning executing minors: the US specifically, and legally, exempted itself at ratification from the provisions governing execution of minors, so the US was not violating its treaty obligations. Kyoto's another instance of a treaty that's in effect, but not on us. ICC is another.

-- one problematic area of international law is regulations and edicts/pronouncements by lesser-ranking bodies and organizations. These come in two flavors. The first are regulations produced by an organization the US is in, by treaty or convention: e.g., WTO regulations. These tend to be binding on the US, although how they wind up being interpreted is frequently unpredictable. The second are regulations that are at best tangentially related to the US: a lot of UN bodies make rules that are frequently called 'international law', although they are, at best, binding on those bodies, meaningless beyond those boundaries; NGOs or their supporters typically also push things under the heading 'international law', whether they result from some sort of UN-sponsored conclave or not.

The 'international law' that RWers whine about typically is those types that aren't binding on the US: citing EU or Zimbabwean law, or the rulings or working paper from some minor body in the UN, or the document resulting from an international meeting on some topic.

I vaguely agree with many of their points: if we interpret US law by other tradition's standards, it's great for foreign policy. But SCOTUS isn't in charge of foreign policy, and should primarily concern themselves with interpreting the Constitution and laws in the framework in which they're written. If they want to overturn some provision because they think it's wrong, that's fine: but use logic, arguments based on US documents and legislative history, or case law. I don't think SCOTUS has relied crucially on any "international law", improperly defined, but has turned to it for ancillary support. This is unnecessary, polemical, and they should refrain from doing so. Their arguments stand or not, without reference to things that aren't, strictly speaking, legally applicable in the US.