Our judges are bashing American law

In a short, but excellent, Wall Street Journal opinion article, the WSJ takes on the disturbing fact that judges, who have less respect for the law than most people realize, are now trying to abandon American law altogether:

One of the more dangerous fads in Supreme Court jurisprudence of late is something called 'international law,' in which American laws are measured not just against the Constitution but against the laws of foreign countries. The purpose is to put the U.S. law in what supporters delicately call a 'global context.' What they really mean is that they can't persuade enough Americans of their views to change U.S. law so they want to persuade judges to do it for them. Among the most ardent supporters of this view are opponents (here and abroad) of the death penalty, who argue that capital punishment violates international norms. In the juvenile death-penalty case it heard last fall, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of permitting friend-of-the-court briefs from 48 foreign governments and such renowned jurists as Mikhail Gorbachev and the Dalai Lama. (Naturally, they all opposed it.) Which brings us to Medellin v. Dretke, a death penalty-related case that the Supreme Court will hear next month and which has the potential to catapult the concept of international law to a new level of acceptability in American courts. At issue is whether an order issued by the International Court of Justice at The Hague must be enforced by a court in Texas. That is, the "supreme" court of the United States would reside in the Netherlands, not the District of Columbia.

If you've got the time, read the whole article, which I found disgusting, although not surprising (I've had too many years of contact with judges to be surprised).