double standard? (USA thread)

[vidcc]

Added to the recent thread about judicial activism and foreign "influence"

Is it a double standard to complain if a judge looks to other nations when making a "moral ruling" then wish to use foreign convictions against someone?
The Bush administration is wishing to ban gun ownership to those with convictions outside the USA and Justice Antonin Scalia who last week said that foreign courts have no place in US law is backing the idea.

My views on gun ownership is a wish for only law enforcement, military and "hunter/farmers" to have them so I support the Bush view, however I can't abide the double standard.

The Supreme court has ruled that only domestic convictions apply.... bit of a turn for both sides I feel.


so you know what I am talking about

The case in question is a bit extreme (gun smuggling) and I don't think this man should have a gun legally under any circumstance, but if right wingers are going to object to judges looking at foreign views then they have to accept that foreign convictions should not apply.

thoughts

[JPaul]

"In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the language of the phrase "convicted in any court" had an "expansive meaning" to include foreign convictions. The majority, he said, "institutes the troubling rule that 'any' does not really mean 'any,' but may mean 'some subset of 'any," even if nothing in the context so indicates; it distorts the established canons against extraterritorality and absurdity."

Subset of any - fan tastic, yay the dissenter.

In essence your Supreme Court has decided that convictions in foreign Courts are to be ignored. Depending of the wording of the specific legislation. I suppose it would stand for any piece which relied on the phrase "convicted in any Court" and as such preclude any such convictions had they been made in a foreign Court.

Obviously they can act on your behalf as they see fit. However it is just another example of them deciding that the USA should live in isolation from the views and actions of the rest of the World. In this instance it looks like they are saying, "Yes he did a bad thing in your country, that is of no interest to us. Any conviction you made is of no consequence"

However this is more to do with the interpretation of the word "any", hence my mirth at the idea that you have a subset of it.

[vidcc]

The wording of "any" hasn't gone without attention. However we have different laws so something that is a felony in the Uk is not here.
I actually believe that any conviction in any court in any land should count, but then should someone with a conviction for "use of excessive force" in self defence...an assault charge... in the UK be banned from gun ownership in the US if his assault wouldn't get an arrest let alone conviction here?

Edit:

The people argueing the "any" are the same people that said that foreign courts are not always just and therefore can have NO BEARING on the US. examples given included courts in places like Iran, North korea and Cuba.

[JPaul]

The language in our law quoted in the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas (joined by Kennedy and Scalia), while at first blush seeming to run counter to the spirit of my thread, in fact supports it; Thomas found that the phrase "any court" should mean precisely what it says, foreign conviction or no.

The fact that a similar domestic conviction would have certainly resulted in a finding that Mr. Small should henceforth be precluded from ownership of a firearm is irrelevant-the matter at hand concerns the strict interpretation of the language contained in the law, which, had the decision gone according to the minority contention, would have had the same result.

Indeed.

It is my understanding that, in law, words should have their normal meaning. Unless the context alters this, I believe the dissenter covered this point rather well.

[JPaul]

While it may not be apparent, I think the minority opinion indicates it shares your belief that the idea of a "subset" of the word "any" (as used) is absurd.

That is how I had read it, how can one have a subset of "any".

[Busyman]

I don't know about this "any" shit.

I think every case should be looked at individually and foreign cases would take less precedence.

For example, if I was covicted of possession of a handgun in the UK then that should not preclude me from owning one here.

If the same happened in Washington DC then I can't own a gun.

I understand the reluctance of a sort of reciprocity due to a foreign country maybe harboring an anti-Americanism.

It's enough that they are subject to their laws but should Americans in America be subject to them too? I don't think so in every case.

The main purpose is to safeguard Americans from potential criminals.
If an American massacred 13 folks on foreign soil it would be foolish to ignore him "when he comes back home". I recall a case that some fella was going to the Phillipines with just the mere intention of having sex with children and I think we actually punished him with jail time. I think there was a law on the books for that.

The matter is up to our lawmakers first and thennnnn there can be concrete application.

[GepperRankins]

j2k4 is ghye omg roflpamnts :0110101010101:

[GepperRankins]

no really you dont look fprward to iy

[vidcc]

Once again, you miss the point; the minority "argument" over the word any is that (listen closely, now) there should be NO argument over the word's meaning.

It is the majority decision which has (mis-) taken the liberties, here.

What minority?

I stated that it should mean any... so how did I miss the point?I am simply pointing out that last week the same people...and read carefully because I put it in bold before..... stated without any exceptions that under no circumstances should foreign courts have any bearing on the USA. They stated that foreign courts were not "fair and democratic" as ours..... are they now saying that they are?

I remind you that I believe that judges should be able to take into account international norms when making rulings on moral or human rights issues.... I seem to recall objections to that.

[JPaul]

I don't know about this "any" shit.

Then you entirely miss the crux. Your law states "any Court", your Supreme Court argued what "any" means and has decided that it does not include foreign Courts, judges from your Supreme Court have pointed out that is ludicrous.

The laughable matter is that the Supreme Court cannot even decide what a word (which quite frankly is not open to any ambiguity) means.