Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[chuckd]

This should help explain Sanders' popularity...particularly for those Global Citizens of the World we seem to be blessed with.

[sirineou]

This should help explain Sanders' popularity...particularly for those Global Citizens of the World we seem to be blessed with.

More pretty pictures from those on the right

Trump Good!!

Bernie Bad!!

Oooohhh Shiny

[up2u2]

This should help explain Sanders' popularity...particularly for those Global Citizens of the World we seem to be blessed with.

I always know when I have you on the ropes Chuckd all you can come up with in your defence is a childish cartoon.

[boomerangutang]

Wow, a photo of the tooth fairy. I've never seen what she looked like. What a dish. Too bad I was sleeping when she put a dime under my pillow in exchange for a tooth.

[SpokaneAl]

Not at all. Don't confuse Left Wing Democrats with the loony Right Wing Republicans. Good candidates discussing the issues and speaking to an enlightened educated Left Wing electorate doesn't need or want racism or hatreds or bigotry and 'look at me mentality' to lift their profile.

An intelligent and educated enough electorate that knows Bernie is not advocating Socialism and that Sweden is not a Socialist Nation but a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy. What Bernie is quite correctly pointing out is how better the Swedish Health Care system is than the expensive burdensome worse outcome US Health Care System.

This thread tends to be for major steps in Bernie's candidacy. New York is the next big obstacle for Bernie.

A few mistakes made by Bernie in the lead up. Attacking Hillary on personal grounds. That kind of childish behaviour best left to Republicans.

Rather than addressing the points the economist made about Sweden's decline as direct result of big government and wanting to be everything for everyone you move back to the liberal stock in trade - the evilness of republicans.

LOL. They just can't resist. It's in their DNA. Hilarious how they throw other stock-in-trade phrases like "childish behavior" around, isn't it? Every debate with a dem eventually devolves into playground name-calling.

For a start I am not a Dem. As a Global Citizen of the World I support moderate Left Wing leaning politicians around the world, simply on the basis they are aligned with my ethical and moral values and generally are respectful of human rights and protect the vulnerable.

So please enlighten us to how you describe Republican Politicians who get in a debate about hand and penis size? How on earth that passes muster as intellectual political debate of the issues is beyond me. To be a supporter of the Republican Party one has to set the bar very very very low when it comes to standards of intelligent debate.

What is typical, is Republicans who present xenophobic racist bigoted views and then whine about being held to account, advocate torture and threaten other sovereign Nations and then have a cry because they are labelled war mongers, threaten to kill innocent civilians and then moan because they are accused of committing crimes against humanity and breaking international laws, threaten to exclude people based on their religion and then have a hissy fit when they are accused of violating their own Nations Constitution, enshrine 'trap laws' to circumvent Federal Laws and then throw a tantrum when they are accused of being slimy back door operators, incite violence and then when their rallies turn into a free for all they start playing the victim.

I was being critical of Bernie and making the point that personal attacks on an adversary are best left to Republicans and yes it is very much part of their DNA because they continually do it and wonder why they are unelectable. My criticism of Bernie may have been a little harsh as there was a qualifying preamble to his question posed as to whether Hillary is 'qualified' to be President. Most of witch revolved around her voting record in Congress. So Bernie probably makes a fair point.

Just curious, as a global citizen of the world are you an American citizen and eligible to take part in US presidential elections?

[Publicus]

For a start I am not a Dem. As a Global Citizen of the World I support moderate Left Wing leaning politicians around the world, simply on the basis they are aligned with my ethical and moral values and generally are respectful of human rights and protect the vulnerable.

So please enlighten us to how you describe Republican Politicians who get in a debate about hand and penis size? How on earth that passes muster as intellectual political debate of the issues is beyond me. To be a supporter of the Republican Party one has to set the bar very very very low when it comes to standards of intelligent debate.

What is typical, is Republicans who present xenophobic racist bigoted views and then whine about being held to account, advocate torture and threaten other sovereign Nations and then have a cry because they are labelled war mongers, threaten to kill innocent civilians and then moan because they are accused of committing crimes against humanity and breaking international laws, threaten to exclude people based on their religion and then have a hissy fit when they are accused of violating their own Nations Constitution, enshrine 'trap laws' to circumvent Federal Laws and then throw a tantrum when they are accused of being slimy back door operators, incite violence and then when their rallies turn into a free for all they start playing the victim.

I was being critical of Bernie and making the point that personal attacks on an adversary are best left to Republicans and yes it is very much part of their DNA because they continually do it and wonder why they are unelectable. My criticism of Bernie may have been a little harsh as there was a qualifying preamble to his question posed as to whether Hillary is 'qualified' to be President. Most of witch revolved around her voting record in Congress. So Bernie probably makes a fair point.

Just curious, as a global citizen of the world are you an American citizen and eligible to take part in US presidential elections?

Foreign nationals do not of course get to vote in elections of Potus but they always have participated in them with their observations, comments, remarks, analysis, opinions, beliefs and so on. It is informative to Americans to know what foreigners think about us.

This poster has himself observed that on the issues foreign nationals range broadly from the informed to the indoctrinated. Being either hasn't stopped anyone yet nor should it.

I've advised some that they need to be better informed while I've advised others of their positive insights about the United States in the globalised world.

Republicans and rightwingers across the board don't like it at all when foreign nationals speak about US elections, issues, personages in politics, government, religion, society and the like. The Republican controlled Congress in fact enacted a law a couple of years ago that they have the Constitutional authority to do, which prohibits Scotus citing foreign laws in its written opinions and rulings. Seems Republicans in Congress with other rightwhingers don't like EU human rights laws Scotus had been citing and other EU laws and courts' rulings that recognise primarily minority rights in a diverse society.

The late Justice Scalia did a lot of howling over a long time against Scotus citing foreign laws in its decisions. Seems there are descendants of foreigners in the United States who don't like foreigners because the foreigners are foreigners, most of 'em being rightwhingers or other parochials, i.e., Republicans.

Foreigners are not protected by the First Amendment but I am and I with many other Americans welcome foreigners' opinions enlightened or otherwise. I am free to chose to criticise or to endorse the views of certain foreigners, however, I do not tell 'em to buzz out simply because they are foreign nationals.

[sgtsabai]

I am and I do! While I may not vote for a Democrat, I never, ever have or will ever vote for a Republican. I know them for what they are.

[sgtsabai]

A bit of foreign reaction to the Republican primary: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/diplomats-are-racing-ink-international-agreements?akid=14152.85778.BP1Ton&rd=1&src=newsletter1054179&t=8

[SpokaneAl]

For a start I am not a Dem. As a Global Citizen of the World I support moderate Left Wing leaning politicians around the world, simply on the basis they are aligned with my ethical and moral values and generally are respectful of human rights and protect the vulnerable.

So please enlighten us to how you describe Republican Politicians who get in a debate about hand and penis size? How on earth that passes muster as intellectual political debate of the issues is beyond me. To be a supporter of the Republican Party one has to set the bar very very very low when it comes to standards of intelligent debate.

What is typical, is Republicans who present xenophobic racist bigoted views and then whine about being held to account, advocate torture and threaten other sovereign Nations and then have a cry because they are labelled war mongers, threaten to kill innocent civilians and then moan because they are accused of committing crimes against humanity and breaking international laws, threaten to exclude people based on their religion and then have a hissy fit when they are accused of violating their own Nations Constitution, enshrine 'trap laws' to circumvent Federal Laws and then throw a tantrum when they are accused of being slimy back door operators, incite violence and then when their rallies turn into a free for all they start playing the victim.

I was being critical of Bernie and making the point that personal attacks on an adversary are best left to Republicans and yes it is very much part of their DNA because they continually do it and wonder why they are unelectable. My criticism of Bernie may have been a little harsh as there was a qualifying preamble to his question posed as to whether Hillary is 'qualified' to be President. Most of witch revolved around her voting record in Congress. So Bernie probably makes a fair point.

Just curious, as a global citizen of the world are you an American citizen and eligible to take part in US presidential elections?

Foreign nationals do not of course get to vote in elections of Potus but they always have participated in them with their observations, comments, remarks, analysis, opinions, beliefs and so on. It is informative to Americans to know what foreigners think about us.

This poster has himself observed that on the issues foreign nationals range broadly from the informed to the indoctrinated. Being either hasn't stopped anyone yet nor should it.

I've advised some that they need to be better informed while I've advised others of their positive insights about the United States in the globalised world.

Republicans and rightwingers across the board don't like it at all when foreign nationals speak about US elections, issues, personages in politics, government, religion, society and the like. The Republican controlled Congress in fact enacted a law a couple of years ago that they have the Constitutional authority to do, which prohibits Scotus citing foreign laws in its written opinions and rulings. Seems Republicans in Congress with other rightwhingers don't like EU human rights laws Scotus had been citing and other EU laws and courts' rulings that recognise primarily minority rights in a diverse society.

The late Justice Scalia did a lot of howling over a long time against Scotus citing foreign laws in its decisions. Seems there are descendants of foreigners in the United States who don't like foreigners because the foreigners are foreigners, most of 'em being rightwhingers or other parochials, i.e., Republicans.

Foreigners are not protected by the First Amendment but I am and I with many other Americans welcome foreigners' opinions enlightened or otherwise. I am free to chose to criticise or to endorse the views of certain foreigners, however, I do not tell 'em to buzz out simply because they are foreign nationals.

The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, determines whether cases heard before it conform to the U.S. Constitution. Foreign laws should play no part in Supreme Court decisions.

[SpokaneAl]

A bit of foreign reaction to the Republican primary: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/diplomats-are-racing-ink-international-agreements?akid=14152.85778.BP1Ton&rd=1&src=newsletter1054179&t=8

Foreign reaction - good or bad - not my concern. Neither is it my concern what people who are not eligible to vote or choose not to vote think about this process, the candidates and/or the results. Their opinions, IMO of course, simply do not matter and have no bearing on the discussion at hand.

[sgtsabai]

It seems to be as you accuse people of being a "foreigner" and not having a right to an opinion. Perhaps it would do you some good to listen to others opinions, they may know more than you. Many Americans can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Foreign reactions should be yours and everybody's concern. These aren't just people on the street and their opinion of what low and insanity the US has sunk to under the right wing wacko Republicans does matter. We haven't had much respect in the world for years, thank you Cheney/Bush et al. It can get lower and like NC, Mississippi, and now TN, many will start to take their business elsewhere. How could any country trust a Trump or a Cruz, or hell any of the right wing wackos of the Republican Party. OK or a Hillary. Oh, I believe you will find English Common Law often plays a part in the decision of judges and the basis of law in the US. Bernie can and will try to turn it around and at least try to put the country back on the correct track.

[helpisgood]

Foreign nationals do not of course get to vote in elections of Potus but they always have participated in them with their observations, comments, remarks, analysis, opinions, beliefs and so on. It is informative to Americans to know what foreigners think about us.

This poster has himself observed that on the issues foreign nationals range broadly from the informed to the indoctrinated. Being either hasn't stopped anyone yet nor should it.

I've advised some that they need to be better informed while I've advised others of their positive insights about the United States in the globalised world.

Republicans and rightwingers across the board don't like it at all when foreign nationals speak about US elections, issues, personages in politics, government, religion, society and the like. The Republican controlled Congress in fact enacted a law a couple of years ago that they have the Constitutional authority to do, which prohibits Scotus citing foreign laws in its written opinions and rulings. Seems Republicans in Congress with other rightwhingers don't like EU human rights laws Scotus had been citing and other EU laws and courts' rulings that recognise primarily minority rights in a diverse society.

The late Justice Scalia did a lot of howling over a long time against Scotus citing foreign laws in its decisions. Seems there are descendants of foreigners in the United States who don't like foreigners because the foreigners are foreigners, most of 'em being rightwhingers or other parochials, i.e., Republicans.

Foreigners are not protected by the First Amendment but I am and I with many other Americans welcome foreigners' opinions enlightened or otherwise. I am free to chose to criticise or to endorse the views of certain foreigners, however, I do not tell 'em to buzz out simply because they are foreign nationals.

The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, determines whether cases heard before it conform to the U.S. Constitution. Foreign laws should play no part in Supreme Court decisions.

I can sympathize with Al's basic point, but much of American law is based upon English common law. Old English common law is helpful in understanding and interpreting modern American common law albeit maybe less so than in the past. Thus, American law is not purely American.

I can understand why foreign laws, of course, should not be controlling in deciding SCOTUS cases. However, foreign laws, especially those laws that fill in empty spaces in emerging and developing issues of American law, can provide helpful and persuasive ideas in molding better laws for America. This may be more so with the rapidly developing technologies like the Internet, smart phone encryption, etc. creating new and challenging legal issues. There's no harm in borrowing ideas from others, and then adjusting those ideas to fit the specifics needs of Americans.

Nevertheless, I agree with Al to the extent that ultimately only SCOTUS and the lower courts get to decide American law.

[Had to delete a couple of quotes in order to post this.]

Edited April 13, 2016 by helpisgood

[up2u2]

Publicus how is Bernie looking in the lead up to New York Primary's.

Last I looked Hillary had 18 point lead on him. Just wondering if Bernie has managed to cut her lead a little?

[Jingthing]

Recent Polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

If that holds, based on the delegate system, should be a blowout by Clinton.

New York Democratic Presidential Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 53, Sanders 40 Clinton +13 New York Democratic Presidential Primary NY1/Baruch Clinton 50, Sanders 37 Clinton +13 New York Democratic Presidential Primary PPP (D) Clinton 51, Sanders 40 Clinton +11

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[up2u2]

Hold on JT last time I checked 'realclear' Hillary was +18 now she is down to +13

Surely Bernie has taken it wide on the turn and is under the whip heading down the straight and gaining ground.

[Jingthing]

Hold on JT last time I checked 'realclear' Hillary was +18 now she is down to +13

Surely Bernie has taken it wide on the turn and is under the whip heading down the straight and gaining ground.

If believing that makes you feel better, sure thing.

He won't win.

I predict Hillary by 8 points and a relatively significant delegate victory.

Sure if Sanders could win in New York it would give life to his doomed campaign, but alas, not gonna happen.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[SpokaneAl]

It seems to be as you accuse people of being a "foreigner" and not having a right to an opinion. Perhaps it would do you some good to listen to others opinions, they may know more than you. Many Americans can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Foreign reactions should be yours and everybody's concern. These aren't just people on the street and their opinion of what low and insanity the US has sunk to under the right wing wacko Republicans does matter. We haven't had much respect in the world for years, thank you Cheney/Bush et al. It can get lower and like NC, Mississippi, and now TN, many will start to take their business elsewhere. How could any country trust a Trump or a Cruz, or hell any of the right wing wackos of the Republican Party. OK or a Hillary. Oh, I believe you will find English Common Law often plays a part in the decision of judges and the basis of law in the US. Bernie can and will try to turn it around and at least try to put the country back on the correct track.

Actually I used your term in response to your post - foreign reaction. I do wonder how you would feel about those from elsewhere if they were overwhelmingly against Sanders. Edited April 13, 2016 by SpokaneAl

[up2u2]

Hold on JT last time I checked 'realclear' Hillary was +18 now she is down to +13

Surely Bernie has taken it wide on the turn and is under the whip heading down the straight and gaining ground.

If believing that makes you feel better, sure thing.

He won't win.

I predict Hillary by 8 points and a relatively significant delegate victory.

Sure if Sanders could win in New York it would give life to his doomed campaign, but alas, not gonna happen.

Come on JT Bernie's on the straight a few furlongs behind but he is gaining ground. Could be a photo finish. I'd agree with you if it was obvious he'd blown a fetlock and was losing ground but the old grey colt may have it in him with a fight to the line.

[Jingthing]

Tightening is normal.

They both have New York roots.

The Jewish vote is unusually significant in New York and most Jews are democrats.

Large numbers and much higher levels of PARTICIPATION.

The Jewish vote will favor Hillary Clinton even though Sanders is ethnically a Jew (otherwise not).

To add a probably snarky comment.

I think most American Jews would like to see a Jewish president someday. Not a big deal, like Obama was for African Americans, but it would be kind of cool. But I don't think a RED DIAPER BABY (yes that is a THING) like Bernie is exactly what most American Jew have in mind for that role, if it ever happens. Which again, is no big deal either way.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[sgtsabai]

I would feel it was their opinion, however wrong. Bernie does have a rcognition problem in other countries like he has had in the states. That is on purpose. I haven't seen much opinion opposing Bernie from those that are American, only those fools that watch faux (not the) news and other right wing hate internet liars. http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/print/most_american_voters_say_meh_2016_presidential_candidates_sanders_20160412

[chuckd]

LOL. They just can't resist. It's in their DNA. Hilarious how they throw other stock-in-trade phrases like "childish behavior" around, isn't it? Every debate with a dem eventually devolves into playground name-calling.

For a start I am not a Dem. As a Global Citizen of the World I support moderate Left Wing leaning politicians around the world, simply on the basis they are aligned with my ethical and moral values and generally are respectful of human rights and protect the vulnerable.

So please enlighten us to how you describe Republican Politicians who get in a debate about hand and penis size? How on earth that passes muster as intellectual political debate of the issues is beyond me. To be a supporter of the Republican Party one has to set the bar very very very low when it comes to standards of intelligent debate.

What is typical, is Republicans who present xenophobic racist bigoted views and then whine about being held to account, advocate torture and threaten other sovereign Nations and then have a cry because they are labelled war mongers, threaten to kill innocent civilians and then moan because they are accused of committing crimes against humanity and breaking international laws, threaten to exclude people based on their religion and then have a hissy fit when they are accused of violating their own Nations Constitution, enshrine 'trap laws' to circumvent Federal Laws and then throw a tantrum when they are accused of being slimy back door operators, incite violence and then when their rallies turn into a free for all they start playing the victim.

I was being critical of Bernie and making the point that personal attacks on an adversary are best left to Republicans and yes it is very much part of their DNA because they continually do it and wonder why they are unelectable. My criticism of Bernie may have been a little harsh as there was a qualifying preamble to his question posed as to whether Hillary is 'qualified' to be President. Most of witch revolved around her voting record in Congress. So Bernie probably makes a fair point.

Just curious, as a global citizen of the world are you an American citizen and eligible to take part in US presidential elections?

Since all the liberal Democrats are dancing around an answer, let me interject that up2u2 is most definitely NOT an American.

He has no dog in the fight. Take his opinions for what they are worth.

[sgtsabai]

Here is a little about the delegate race: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/03/nevada-county-conventions-win-likely-net-two-more-delegates-sanders

http://thiscantbehappening.net/print/3124 http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=md72ZaYXFsEULrR6fO8buXXVz3%2ByS6WW

[sgtsabai]

Ok trying again, missed the last one. http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Sanders-Did-Even-Better-in-in-General_News-Colorado_Delegates_Democratic-Party_Party-Politics-Democratic-160412-923.html

[sgtsabai]

He certainly shows more brain power than some of the right wingers that post on here. I like what he says, and he has a dog in the fight. When America sneezes, the world catches a cold. If you are foolish enough to think what happens in America doesn't affect us over here...... som na na.

[SpokaneAl]

LOL. They just can't resist. It's in their DNA. Hilarious how they throw other stock-in-trade phrases like "childish behavior" around, isn't it? Every debate with a dem eventually devolves into playground name-calling.

For a start I am not a Dem. As a Global Citizen of the World I support moderate Left Wing leaning politicians around the world, simply on the basis they are aligned with my ethical and moral values and generally are respectful of human rights and protect the vulnerable.

So please enlighten us to how you describe Republican Politicians who get in a debate about hand and penis size? How on earth that passes muster as intellectual political debate of the issues is beyond me. To be a supporter of the Republican Party one has to set the bar very very very low when it comes to standards of intelligent debate.

What is typical, is Republicans who present xenophobic racist bigoted views and then whine about being held to account, advocate torture and threaten other sovereign Nations and then have a cry because they are labelled war mongers, threaten to kill innocent civilians and then moan because they are accused of committing crimes against humanity and breaking international laws, threaten to exclude people based on their religion and then have a hissy fit when they are accused of violating their own Nations Constitution, enshrine 'trap laws' to circumvent Federal Laws and then throw a tantrum when they are accused of being slimy back door operators, incite violence and then when their rallies turn into a free for all they start playing the victim.

I was being critical of Bernie and making the point that personal attacks on an adversary are best left to Republicans and yes it is very much part of their DNA because they continually do it and wonder why they are unelectable. My criticism of Bernie may have been a little harsh as there was a qualifying preamble to his question posed as to whether Hillary is 'qualified' to be President. Most of witch revolved around her voting record in Congress. So Bernie probably makes a fair point.

Just curious, as a global citizen of the world are you an American citizen and eligible to take part in US presidential elections?

Since all the liberal Democrats are dancing around an answer, let me interject that up2u2 is most definitely NOT an American.

He has no dog in the fight. Take his opinions for what they are worth.

So up2u2 who leads this discussion, and is absolutely the biggest Sanders fan on this thread is not even eligible, as a non American, to vote on the subject that you feel so passionate about.

Well you sure fooled me. I find the whole thing kind of humorous.

I trust that you are equally as passionate about political events in your own country, wherever that may be. Edited April 14, 2016 by Scott

[sgtsabai]

I doubt the biggest Bernie fan on this thread. Not one other candidate is worth the time it takes to vote. He is entitled to his opinion which is a lot more reasoned and intelligent than those that oppose his posting.

[SpokaneAl]

I doubt the biggest Bernie fan on this thread. Not one other candidate is worth the time it takes to vote. He is entitled to his opinion which is a lot more reasoned and intelligent than those that oppose his posting.

I am not one who opposes his postings. Going forward I will just take them with few or no grains of salt.

And we almost agree on the current candidates. I still have yet to find any I would consider voting for.

[sgtsabai]

OK

[Publicus]

Foreign nationals do not of course get to vote in elections of Potus but they always have participated in them with their observations, comments, remarks, analysis, opinions, beliefs and so on. It is informative to Americans to know what foreigners think about us.

This poster has himself observed that on the issues foreign nationals range broadly from the informed to the indoctrinated. Being either hasn't stopped anyone yet nor should it.

I've advised some that they need to be better informed while I've advised others of their positive insights about the United States in the globalised world.

Republicans and rightwingers across the board don't like it at all when foreign nationals speak about US elections, issues, personages in politics, government, religion, society and the like. The Republican controlled Congress in fact enacted a law a couple of years ago that they have the Constitutional authority to do, which prohibits Scotus citing foreign laws in its written opinions and rulings. Seems Republicans in Congress with other rightwhingers don't like EU human rights laws Scotus had been citing and other EU laws and courts' rulings that recognise primarily minority rights in a diverse society.

The late Justice Scalia did a lot of howling over a long time against Scotus citing foreign laws in its decisions. Seems there are descendants of foreigners in the United States who don't like foreigners because the foreigners are foreigners, most of 'em being rightwhingers or other parochials, i.e., Republicans.

Foreigners are not protected by the First Amendment but I am and I with many other Americans welcome foreigners' opinions enlightened or otherwise. I am free to chose to criticise or to endorse the views of certain foreigners, however, I do not tell 'em to buzz out simply because they are foreign nationals.

The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, determines whether cases heard before it conform to the U.S. Constitution. Foreign laws should play no part in Supreme Court decisions.

Perhaps a little more might be said about it to the cave dwellers especially and in particular.

Since 1972 the right has dominated Scotus. (It does appear the slow pendulum of the several decades cycle is about to swing back to the center and left, which would be consistent with the Court's past.)

The liberal justices began to use some foreign constitutional court rulings to support their many dissenting opinions. A couple of foreign laws worked their way into a narrow majority in favor of the liberals. It was thus that the Republican controlled congress and the Republican Potus GW Bush combined to prohibit Scotus citing foreign laws in its opinions in any way. That is, the reactionaries came out of their caves however briefly.

The only comprehensive public discussion by Scotus justices occurred at the American University Washington College of Law in DC between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, linked below. From the transcript introductory narrative....

Among the most hotly disputed questions at the United States Supreme Court in recent years has been whether it is desirable or even appropriate for the Court or individual justices to rely on judicial decisions or other materials from other countries in deciding American constitutional issues. Two of the Court's most important rulings—those relating to whether homosexual conduct can be criminalized consistent with the Constitution and whether the Constitution authorized racial “affirmative action” to assure a diverse student body—relied in part on foreign law. More recently, the Court used foreign law in its opinion that concluded that the death penalty could not be constitutionally applied to those under eighteen years of age. There are many other examples of the use of foreign law in American constitutional judgments.

http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/4/519.full

Fascinating reading although isolationist Trumphead ostriches need not apply for the obvious reasons.

[thaihome]

...It was thus that the Republican controlled congress and the Republican Potus GW Bush combined to prohibit Scotus citing foreign laws in its opinions in any way. ...

Did congress really pass such a law? I can't find any references saying there is. Lots of discussion and papers, but nothing about Congress limiting the power of the Supreme Court.

TH