And, guy, it is your intrusional mindset that scares the bejesus out of me, because you hold a very conservative interpretation, or a complete lack of morailty when reading the Constitution, which in turn refuses to allow any judicial discretion at all.

You are 180 degrees wrong.  Yes, there should be no Morality in reading the constitution.  For your morality is definitely different than mine, and you cannot say yours is more right.  Yours is not more right.  But, as a democracy, we have to make laws that a majority of citizens agree with, based upon their morality.  The judges then need to interpret them in an amoral way.  I would be the first to scream if Scalia (a Catholic) outlawed abortion (even tho I would fully agree with the intent of the ruling) based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So I really dont scare people.  But the left version of Jerry Falwell, you Dabe, do scare me.  Nambla is in your court and uses much the same langauge.  And that scares me.  But we do have a safeguard against rampant moralism by any sect in the US, at least we are supposed to.  It is called the amorality of the Judicial Branch.

We make our own laws.  If other countries start making our laws, then we might as well turn over the ruling of your country to them, for we have no voice or right to disagree with their ideas of what we should do.

You scare the fucking shit out of me. You and your beloved dipshits who think that removing our individual rights, based on your freakin' interpretation is scary.

Nice to see your old potty mouth self.  I am glad I scare you, but again you are 180 degrees off the truth.  I dont want to remove rights, I want to make sure we have all our rights.  And that cannot happen as long as some appointed Judge is going to deny us those rights.  And you celebrate that.  I would say you scare me, but you are so far out of the mainstream that even if one of your whacky compatriots win, I cant see them doing anything that you call for.

I am a self aware human, that is content with myself.  You still hate yourself, god only knows why.  As for slob, I will match you clean vs filth on your part.  Any time, any way.

I dont hate you Dabe.  I pity you.  I am glad I am not as small and bitter as you are, and will never be.

If you all take the time to read the article, the link being in Lee's post above, you'd see that the Supreme Court justices have a history of looking to foreign courts to help them understand their judicial responsibilities.

But the Article also states that recently it has become more common and foreign laws are used differently, no longer are foreign laws just used for international trade agreements (where there is no US federal laws) on the subject, but dealing with social issues where there are US laws on the books:

“When it comes to interpreting treaties or settling international business disputes, the Court has always looked to the laws of other countries, and the practice has not been particularly controversial,” says Norman Dorsen, a professor at New York University Law School. However, beginning in the late nineteen-nineties, the Court’s more liberal members began citing foreign sources to help interpret the Constitution on basic questions of individual liberties—for which the laws of foreign democracies tend to be more progressive than those at home.by: Jeffery Toobin of The New Yorker.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation wherein a SCOTUS justice is actually writing laws based on foreign court systems or just looking to those courts for help in understanding their responsibilities.

That is the main problem, judges don't write laws. These are the people who enforce the constitution, not write it, and when they do start writing the constitution we may as well start calling them the Polit Bureau (i.e. appointed by the parties, yet saying what the country can do.)

The one case that comes to mind, in particular, is the constitutionality of sentencing a juvenile offender to death. I do not think it's really in the Constitution one way or the other, and such a sentence is one of morality rather than legal responsibility. And again, I applaud those judges who based that decision on the merits of the case. In fact, how can any society with concience put a juvenile offender to death?

Here is where the justices did not follow the constitution and used foreign law. Why you may ask?

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If something is not in the Constitution or a Federal law then it is the States laws that will be used. The State in this case did have a law stating that a juvenile could face death.

It's beyond reprehensible, and the US was the last of the western civilizations to undertake such barbarism.

Then maybe we are not a western civilization, and really the American civilization. I don't want a judge using their morals (just like you don't want an extremely religious judge using his) to make laws, I want them to use the morals of those laws enacted by the people. If you don’t like a law, use you right to vote in order to change it.

My idea of a Constitutional judge is one who doesn't interpret the Constitution in a manner that would remove our rights, as American citizens

But that's just it, you are removing the right of the American people to make a law by ballot or elect those who write the laws (at the local level, if not the Federal level). What judges you like are those who will use laws from other countries and ignore those laws enacted by the American people (local or Federal), just because they are more moral in the Judges opinion.

While you think this is some how protecting the peoples rights, what your really advocating is the removing the right of the American people to create their own laws, even if those laws are barbaric.

I see where you are coming from, while you think protecting one individual’s rights are the highest priority, I find that protecting every American’s right to govern themselves more important. When nine people in black robes start telling me (and voters in the US) that we will us another countries laws, because in their opinion it is more moral then those we enacted, I get scared as hell.

and it is the duty of the supreme court to invalidate barbaric laws enacted by federal government or any state.

Only if those laws violate the Constitution (i.e. the will of the people). If there is nothing in the Constitution pretaining to the law, then the Court has no authority to change or stop it.