They don’t get to cite any old thing that happens to represent a fact. They can cite facts, but only as related to the case at hand. This is exactly my point. Judges should not traffic in ideas, when they don’t know what ideas were in the heads of the people involved in the case.

I could pick three or four different reasonings why a person might or might not be justified in any given action that ends up in a courtroom. The idea of law is to compare them all against what is provided for under the U.S. Constitution, and the applicable U.S. laws, not foreign rulings.

Further, the same goes for “living Constitution” believers. Justice O’Connor should have been at least censured for writing that her own ruling ought to be overturned (or made moot) in 25 years. What is she, the Oracle of Delphi? People like her have all the answers, but unfortunately, they’re all wrong.

Agreed.

“[A]ny judge that cites a foreign law or legal ruling in a purely domestic case should be impeached for violating their oath of office. Let’s see this from an extreme perspective: what if the court justified cutting off the hands of prisoners at GITMO, citing laws in many Islamic nations?”

Good illustration. Let’s compare three judges: Judge A justifies cutting off prisoner hands citing the law of Islamic nations. Judge B justifies cutting off hands by mis-applying US law. Judge C justifies cutting off hands without any rationale whatsoever. Why does Judge A provoke you, but not Judge B or C?

The problem with cutting off hands is, presumably, it violates our Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Period. So Judge A, B and C are equally wrong. The fact that one got it wrong while quoting foreign sources and the others got it wrong without quoting foreign sources is irrelevant. Honestly, guys, if the SCOTUS had rendered the same decision in Lawrence v. Texas while omitting the foreign citations, would we suddenly think is was a brilliant decision?

Let’s get back to the prisoner. He appeals. Appellate Judge X overrules the lower court, citing the US Constitution, the laws of other nations, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Shakespeare. Appellate Judge Y concurs, citing the Constitution. Is Judge X’s decision automatically wrong because he quoted foreign sources? And if it is automatically wrong, what does that say about Judge Y’s decision agreeing with X?

Judges speak about ideas, and if a judge thinks that someone expressed an idea well in the past, the judge may be inclined to cite it. They may cite the OED. They may cite Shakespeare. And, yes, they may cite foreign laws and decisions. That doesn’t mean that the judges are CONTROLLED by the OED, or by Shakespeare, or by foreign law. The fact that all these sources may have been written on foreign soil should not prohibit a judge from quoting them.

After all, most of us (with the exception of the Mormons?) acknowledge that the Bible is not an American book, and that the Laws of the Israelites have not been adopted into the US Code. Are you proposing that we impeach any judge who quotes the 10 Commandments?

The same way the Liberal ya-hoos in SCOTUS should have ruled in Lawrence Vs. Texas.
They couldn’t find anything in the Constitution, nor even one precedent, that would support their opinion, so they went outside the Constitution and used foreign law.

Not only did they acknowledge the foreign Courts, they unconstitutionally adopted it.

” Why are international citations such a big deal but not interstate citations?”

Because we live in a Republic under a Federal Constituion. They don’t operate under a Republican form of Government and we don’t operate under a Socialist or Communist form of Government (not yet anyway).

Why can’t you put Volkswagon wheels on a Chevy pickup?