The debate over whether the Supreme Court should look to foreign law when interpreting the U.S. Constitution is ultimately irrelevant because justices can read whatever they want when they are formulating their opinions, Justice Stephen Breyer said in a speech this week. Noting that the most complaints about referring to foreign law came in cases dealing with the death penalty and gay rights, Breyer said it may be simple "displacement," in which people who dislike the result of a case focus their anger on something else.
April 02, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The debate over whether the Supreme Court should look to foreign law when interpreting the U.S. Constitution is ultimately irrelevant because justices can read whatever they want when they are formulating their opinions, Justice Stephen Breyer said Wednesday.
Breyer said there are those who complain about the top U.S. court potentially looking at what other countries do when they are resolving cases involving American law.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Celebrate outstanding achievement in law firms, chambers, in-house legal departments and alternative business structures.
We are seeking an associate to join our Employee Benefits practice. Candidates should have three to six years of employee benefits experienc...
Associate attorney position at NJ Immigration Law firm: Leschak & Associates, LLC, based in Freehold, NJ, is looking for a full time ass...
Duane Morris LLP has an immediate opening for a senior level, highly motivated litigation associate to join its dynamic and growing Employme...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
