The Long Arm of the Law

Koh should be deported and anyone who agrees that we should cede any authority to foreign courts or the international court traitors and treason

WE SHOULD NEVER CEDE OUR sovereignty to the World Court or the UN> Any leader who does should be tried for treason!!!!

American REvolution was against British law, and probably against current international law. Obama has to bow (as he used to) to his majesty British queen.

Article Vi of the US Constitution makes treaties the law of our land. Like the Geneva Convention and the UN Ban on Torture.

Two Thirds of congress must vote to enter into a treaty and the president must sign them.

Much of the argument against Koh is straw man.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority"

For those who have never read it this is the part of the Constitution of the United States of America that gives the Judicial Branch it's power and authority. Nowhere does it say we have to consider anyone else's laws.

Unless we have signed a treaty with other Nations to consider their laws in our Judicial proceedings, then we do NOT have to do so.

There may be some people out there who prefer to kiss a** rather than kick a**, but that is a choice, not a requirement. And for all those people out there who are so hot to have our Judicial proceedings governed by the Laws of other Nations, ask yourselves this: How many of those nations take OUR laws into account during THEIR Judicial proceedings? Why would we choose to give away a soveriegn right un-necessarily?

Just one point with respect to this article, which I think provides a lot of smoke where this is little fire. With respect to the Women's Convention (CEDAW), it is certainly not inconsistent or dishonest to point to the committee that interprets that treaty for guidance on how to in fact interpret the treaty, and then reject some of those interpretations. The CEDAW committee's interpretations are, by their terms, not binding on parties to the Convention. They are, instead, persuasive authority. So it is not inconsistent for Dean Koh to say that we should look to those interpretations to see if we find any of them persuasive, and then to also say that the interpretation may in fact be wrong.

But even if they were binding (which I repeat, they are clearly not), the fact that some of them are bad should not condemn the entire institution (unless of course many of them are bad). We could all take decisions of the US Supreme Court and talk about how terrible some of them are. We of course may disagree on which ones are correctly or incorrectly decided. By supporting the US Supreme Court, and our form of government,. we are not of course saying we agree with all of its decisions. By the same token, the same can be said for any other institution, whether domestic or foreign.

All the Dean Koh's transnationalism says is that we should be open to looking at foreign law, international law -- in addition to economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology -- in making decisions. This really isn't a radical idea. In fact it is solidly within the mainstream of political opinion in this country.

Does Dean Koh have his own ideas about what policies we should adopt? Of course he does. We all do. That can't possibly be the basis for raising questions about his nomination. Is there a question that he will go off and do something radical without the support of the President? No one has come close to suggesting that, and there is no indication that he would want to do such a thing -- not to mention the fact that he would not have the ability to do such a thing. If the issue then is really about the foreign policy positions of President Obama, then there are many places in which that debate can take place -- politically in Congress, and of course in the media like Newsweek. But let's not confuse that debate with the question about whether Dean Koh is qualified or not to be our nation's top international lawyer.

Here at least, Thomas acknowlages that the ''mainstream'' of academia that includes Koh runs to ''the left''. It is from this area that new threats to constitutional law will eminate, ironically,from a sector that claimed that such rights were ''trampled'' under Bush. The worry here is that business,banking,and military treaty ties between nations including the US, will also make way for overseas decisions that will impact the rights of the individual American. Kohs embrasure of the UNs small arms treaty [ which no nation is paying any attention to including the slowly arming Europe],ICC decisions,those of Spain leveled at former Bush administration figures and other devices seen by critics of transnationalism as being either extra-constitutional or being unconstitutional altogether are forms of transnational legal thought that is now represented by the Kohs and Johnsens of the world. These clearly ''provocative'' views that are held by Koh are dissected in more detail here:

www.volokh.com The VOLOKH Conspiracy [Lawblog]

LOL at anyone expecting America to follow its own laws, let alone treaties or international law.

As we venture ever more deeply into globalization, not only finance and commerce would be 'enmeshed' within a greater macro-structure. Politics, and naturally law would follow suit because you need rules to manage this emerging edifice. We are still at the proto stage here, but management of the world economy (and hence world security) implies globally bnding rules, and means of arbitration, and indeed ones that are far more stringent thanthey are today.

Foreign laws and foreign judges have no place in American courtrooms. Period.

What do you call a tweedy, brainy, Yale legal scholar with favorable views on "transnational jurisprudence", at the bottom of the sea? A good start!

"In his writings, Koh has campaigned to expand some rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution???and perhaps shrink some others, including the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech???to better conform to the laws of other nations."

Other nations my foot. No politician, judge, or so-called "brainy legal scholar" has any authority to touch the Bll of Rights. It isn't theirs to toy with, period. They are the people's rights, protections against government itself.

Koh's "transnationalism" is obviously in flagrant opposition to our supreme law, the US Constitution. Therefore we need question whether he told the truth, that is if he even took an oath to defend it. How is it he can be be fit for the office? Any office? Why are these anti-American views even being debated?

Of course foreign Judges have roles in U.S. courts- as defendents.

They would erode American Democracy? What a hype. Mr. Thomas, where was your comparable story about 8 years of executive branch illegal torture?

You may not agree with his views....but they idea that they are even remotely comparable as a threat to American values to 8 years of Bush Administration Justice Dept "Star Court" activity is simply laughable.

You should be ashamed.